broker_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by detailing the specific inspection actions (verifying ERC-6551 binding, listing balances). It does not contradict 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, concise sentence that front-loads the main verb 'Inspect' and covers all key actions without wasted words.

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?

The description covers the tool's three main actions (inspect, verify, list) and references specific constraints (ERC-6551, token-bound wallet). It lacks details about output format or what 'canonical' means, but given the low complexity and single parameter, it is largely complete.

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 a description for tokenId ('StonkBroker token ID'). The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting baseline expectations.

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 verb ('Inspect'), the resource ('StonkBroker NFT'), and the specific actions (verify ERC-6551 binding, list balances). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with system health, stock tokens, quotes, trades, or retries.

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 usage for inspecting a specific NFT token, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not or prerequisite conditions. Context from sibling tools helps but is not part of the description.

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