get_nft_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds valuable behavioral details: data source (Reservoir API), multi-chain merge sorted by timestamp, result capping at limit. 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?

Description is concise (3-4 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence provides essential information without redundancy. No 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?

Despite no output schema, description effectively explains what the tool returns: activity types, source, merge/sorting behavior, and limits. It also cross-references get_transaction_history for shape. Sufficient for an agent to understand the output.

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 covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions (chains, limit). Description adds context for limit (default 25, max 100) and clarifies multi-chain merge behavior. Wallet parameter lacks schema description but is implied by tool purpose. Overall adds 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?

Clearly states it returns 'Recent NFT activity' with explicit activity types (mints, sales, transfers, etc.) and specifies it covers EVM chains. Distinguishes from sibling tool get_transaction_history by noting it mirrors its shape but is scoped to NFT 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?

Provides context for when to use: for NFT-relevant events, and notes EVM-only with Solana deferred. Mentions it mirrors get_transaction_history, implying that tool is for general transactions. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but gives a clear alternative.

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