nft_trades

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only includes pricing and an API URL, but does not indicate if the tool is read-only, destructive, what data it returns, or any restrictions (e.g., rate limits beyond free tier). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 very short (one line of purpose plus pricing/URL), which is concise but the URL could be considered noise. The structure is minimal and front-loaded, but the lack of clarity reduces effectiveness.

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 tool with 2 parameters and many siblings, the description does not provide enough context to understand what the tool does (e.g., what 'NFT trade records' means, what the response looks like, or how it differs from other NFT tools). Without an output schema, the description fails to complete the picture.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage (both 'collection' and 'limit' are described in Chinese). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No enhancement or conflict.

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 states 'NFT交易记录' (NFT trade records), indicating the tool retrieves NFT trade data, but lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'get', 'list') and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like nft_floor or nft_metadata. The purpose is vague and could apply to multiple NFT-related tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other NFT tools (nft_floor, nft_metadata, nft_owner, etc.). No contexts, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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