get_nft_collection

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, which already indicate readOnly and idempotent. It details the exact data returned (floor, top bid, volume windows, supply, royalty) and the data source (Reservoir). It also discloses the EVM-only constraint. No contradictions 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?

The description is concise yet comprehensive: two sentences, front-loaded with a list of returned data, followed by use case and constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description provides a thorough list of output fields (name, symbol, image, floor, top bid, volume windows, owner count, supply, royalty). It also covers limitations (EVM-only, chain defaults) and use context. This makes the tool's capabilities clear and complete for agent decision-making.

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 descriptions for both parameters, providing baseline. The description adds context by restating the default chain and clarifying that contract address must be an EVM address. It also ties the parameters to the intended use case, adding meaningful guidance 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 explicitly states it retrieves Wallet-less NFT collection metadata including name, symbol, image, description, floor ask, top bid, volume stats, owner count, supply, and royalty. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_nft_history or get_nft_listings by focusing on collection vitals.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for "what's this collection's vitals?" lookups before adding it to a watchlist or evaluating exposure.' It also states limitations: EVM-only in v1, Solana NFTs are deferred, and to pass the contract address on its deployed chain (defaulting to ethereum). This effectively guides the agent on appropriate use cases.

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