get_nft_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining multi-chain result merging, timestamp sorting, a cap at `limit`, and the data source (Reservoir API). No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details and a sibling reference. No wasted words; every sentence adds information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (3 params, strong annotations), the description covers source, event types, merging, sorting, cap, EVM limitation, and relations to sibling. Lacks explicit return structure but references `get_transaction_history`'s shape, which compensates. Well-rounded for a read-only query.

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 descriptions cover 2 of 3 parameters (chains, limit) completely, and the description mostly echoes those details. For the wallet parameter, the description only says 'EVM wallet' but schema pattern already implies that. No new meaning beyond 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 uses specific verbs ('get', 'list') and nouns ('NFT activity', 'mints, sales, transfers, listings, bids, cancels') and clearly identifies the resource (wallet address across EVM chains). It distinguishes itself from the sibling `get_transaction_history` by explicitly noting it is scoped to NFT-relevant events.

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 clear context: it returns NFT-specific activity across EVM chains, mirrors `get_transaction_history`, and notes EVM-only with Solana deferred. It implies when to use (for NFT events) and when not (for non-EVM chains), but does not give explicit 'when not to use' or list alternatives beyond the one sibling mentioned.

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