Your question is interesting, and starting from the comment on the question I did some research.
As said by @ccprog and @Semaphore (thanks to both), the Nuremberg Chronicle is mostly (more than 90% - see here) references of other sources.
So, in the end the question can be put as "how reliable and accurate are the SOURCE of the Nuremberg Chronicle?"
Let's see how the Chronicle is divided (according to Wikipedia):
- First age: from creation to the Deluge
- Second age: up to the birth of Abraham
- Third age: up to King David Fourth age: up to the Babylonian
- Fourth age: up to the Babylonian captivity
- Fifth age: up to the birth of Jesus Christ
- Sixth age: up to the present time (the largest part)
- Seventh age: outlook on the end of the world and the Last Judgment
Given that we may agree of the inaccuracy of the fonts for the first, second, third and fourth age (it is hard to find "historically accurate" reports of that time) and the seventh, as it is about the future, let's check on the source of the fifth and sixth age:
The source is the biblic fonts, which cannot be taken as "historically accurate" (you can have a glimpse here) - so, long story short: no, it is not accurate
Here the author may have used more historically accurate reports and sources.
Among them the autor choses to use the "Supplementum chronicarum" of
Giacomo Filippo Foresti, which was itself a report of other chronicles.
Given that as stated by his english wikipedia page:
Recent research has both drawn attention to the Legenda Aurea and the letter of Prester John as possible sources for Foresti's narration of the episode, casting doubt on the veracity of an Ethiopian embassy to Europe at this date
I believe that we can assume that the historically accuracy of the book is low in the best case.
It has instead a lot of really nice and interesting illustration as you may see in the digitalised version made available by the University of Cambridge