Verify a claim against the chain

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

The description goes beyond annotations: it states the tool returns 'confirmed, contradicted, or unverifiable', provides the exact numbers and instructions to reproduce the check independently, and explicitly says it returns UNVERIFIABLE rather than guessing. This adds critical behavioral context that annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) do not cover. It also emphasizes trust independence, which is a valuable behavioral trait.

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 detailed but not bloated. It front-loads the core purpose and usage, then explains return values and the tool's cautious behavior within the same paragraph. It is a single, dense paragraph that earns its length; could be slightly more scannable, but it's effective for the complexity.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how to interpret results, and how to reproduce the check, which is critical for trust. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description), the tool description adds important context by tying the 'claim' types to the 'subject' and 'value' requirements. It clarifies that 'value' is required for supply and floor claims, and that 'wallet' is for ownership. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions but does not fully re-explain every parameter, so a 4 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 the tool's purpose: verify a claim a user was told against on-chain reality. It enumerates concrete example claims (supply, never-traded, ownership, floor price), which also align with the claim enum. It distinguishes itself from data-fetching siblings (like get_collection_stats) by focusing on verification of external assertions, not just retrieving data.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'Use this whenever a claim about a collection or asset carries stakes' and provides examples. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to avoid, but it clearly implies that this is the go-to for validating assertions, while siblings (like get_floor_prices) are for direct queries. The guidance is strong enough for an agent to select correctly.

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