get_nfts_by_owner

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get the count' without mentioning network support, return type, failure behavior, or rate limits. This is a minimal read operation but lacks useful context such as what happens for an empty wallet or supported chains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that directly states the action with no redundancy or filler. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should hint at return format but does not. For a simple count, the description covers the core use case but leaves gaps about how 'owned' is defined and the structure of the response (e.g., plain integer vs object). It is adequate but not thorough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents all three parameters (collectionAddress, ownerAddress, network) with descriptions, so coverage is 100%. The tool description adds little meaning beyond the schema, merely restating that it counts NFTs for a specific collection and owner, which is already implied by the parameter names. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves the count of NFTs owned by an address in a specific collection. The verb 'get' and resource 'NFTs by owner' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like check_nft_ownership (which checks a single NFT's ownership) and get_nft_info (which fetches metadata).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, preferred use cases, or contrast with any sibling NFT tools, leaving the agent to infer from the name and schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.