How NFTs are handled: escrow, freezing, delegates, royalties

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description goes beyond by stating that every entry cites its documentation or program source and notes when observed behavior differs from documentation. This is a valuable behavioral disclosure about reliability and transparency, and it also hints at the depth and verification behind answers. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense paragraph but efficiently packs a broad scope into a few sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists concrete coverage areas. It is not overly verbose given the complexity of the tool, and every sentence contributes information. Slightly more structured formatting could improve readability, but it remains 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?

For an explanation tool with no output schema, the description provides ample context: what it covers, what types of questions it answers, and its source-citation behavior. It does not explicitly state the output format (e.g., a text answer), but that is implied. Given the breadth of topics, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'topic', and the schema already provides a rich description with examples ('escrow', 'royalties on Tensor', 'permanent transfer delegate'). The tool description repeats those examples but adds no new information about the parameter. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('explain') and a clear resource ('how a standard or a marketplace handles an asset'), then enumerates concrete scenarios (escrow, freeze, royalties, wash trades, standards migration). It distinguishes itself from sibling data-retrieval tools by focusing on conceptual explanation rather than raw facts, and even names the specific protocols and marketplaces covered.

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 makes the tool's use case obvious through the list of example questions ('what does frozen mean', 'can they burn my card', 'is Magic Eden custodial') and the explicit coverage of platforms and standards. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use them, but the contrast with the data-lookup siblings is implicit and strong.

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