Get card metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that data is fetched on-chain (authoritative source) and reveals the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about failure behavior for nonexistent tokenIds, rate limits, auth requirements, or caching.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the core action and scope come first. The trailing endpoint path is of marginal value to an agent but costs little.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (card metadata). It omits any hint of the response shape or error semantics, which for a one-liner read tool is a minor but real gap.

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 description coverage is 100% ('ERC-721 token id'), so the parameter is already fully documented. The description only restates that the tokenId identifies the card, adding no syntax, range, or format detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (on-chain card metadata) scoped to a tokenId, which cleanly separates it from aggregate siblings like get_collection_stats or get_leaderboard. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself against any sibling tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is named. The only implicit signal is the required tokenId, which suggests 'call when you have a token id,' but the agent must infer this.

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