spraay_portfolio_nfts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant. It adds cost information ($0.005 per call), which is useful behavioral detail. No other behavioral traits (rate limits, data freshness) are disclosed. The description adds some value beyond 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 three short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the resource name but lacks a verb. Efficient, but a verb-phrase start would improve clarity. Still, it conveys key points (cost, read-only, usage) succinctly.

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?

Output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed. However, the description does not clarify what 'networks' means or the scope of NFTs returned (e.g., all NFTs for an address or specific collection?). With only two parameters and high schema coverage, it is minimally sufficient but misses context that could help the agent understand the tool's full behavior.

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% with minimal descriptions ('address parameter', 'networks parameter'). The description adds no further meaning; 'Pass the listed fields directly as typed arguments' just restates schema existence. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters, though it could benefit from clarifying 'networks' format.

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 'Portfolio NFTs' identifies the resource but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'. It conveys the domain but is vague compared to sibling spraay_portfolio_tokens, which likely does similar for tokens. The purpose is inferable but not precisely stated.

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 mentions cost and read-only nature, which are helpful, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like spraay_portfolio_tokens or other NFT-related tools. It does not state exclusions or context for choosing this tool.

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