social_get_nft_collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'detailed social metrics' but does not specify what those metrics are, whether the operation is read-only, or any rate limits or prerequisites. The behavioral characteristics remain opaque.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no redundant information or padding; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate to indicate the basic operation, but without an output schema or any detail on what 'social metrics' includes, the return format and content are undefined. This leaves a gap in completeness for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'slug' is described as 'Collection slug/identifier', which sufficiently explains the input. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'specific NFT collection', but no compensation is needed given the complete schema.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('social metrics'), and the scope ('specific NFT collection'). It is distinct from the plural sibling social_get_nft_collections, which likely lists collections, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving social metrics for a single collection, which suggests a use case. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives like social_get_nft_collections or social_get_coin_metrics.

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