get_nft_collection

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. Description says 'Read-only' and describes a non-destructive operation. It adds context beyond annotations: data source (Reservoir), EVM-only constraint, and return field details. No contradictions.

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 sentences: first lists return fields, second gives use case and source, third states constraints. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no redundant 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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates return fields thoroughly (name, symbol, image, description, floor ask, top bid, volume windows, owner count, total supply, royalty). It also specifies data source (Reservoir) and constraints (EVM-only, chain default). For a read-only lookup tool, this is 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 description coverage is 100%; both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds minor reinforcement: 'Pass the contract address on its deployed chain (defaults to ethereum).' This does not significantly expand semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 retrieves NFT collection metadata including specific fields like name, symbol, image, floor ask, top bid, volume windows, owner count, total supply, and royalty. It distinguishes from siblings by indicating 'Wallet-less' and 'vitals' lookup, and explicitly notes EVM-only vs Solana.

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 provides explicit guidance: use for 'what's this collection's vitals?' lookups before adding to a watchlist or evaluating exposure. It also states EVM-only in v1 and defers Solana NFTs to a different API, helping agents avoid incorrect usage. Pass contract address and default chain are mentioned.

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