getCollectionVolumeGet trading volume and market stats for a Bitcoin ordinal collection from Magic Eden. Returns total volume, floor price, supply, owners, and listings. Use this for questions about collection trading activity or volume.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collectionSymbol | Yes | The collection symbol/slug (e.g., 'bitcoin-puppets', 'nodemonkes', 'quantum-cats') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns total volume, floor price, supply, owners, and listings, which is useful but does not go beyond that baseline. No additional behavioral traits like error conditions or external dependencies are disclosed.
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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and each sentence contributes meaningful information—what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. 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?
With only one required parameter, strong annotations, and a clear description of both behavior and return fields, the description provides a complete picture for an agent. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly lists the returned data, so the agent knows what to expect.
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 provides 100% coverage for the single collectionSymbol parameter, including examples. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool gets trading volume and market stats for a Bitcoin ordinal collection from Magic Eden, and lists the specific data returned. It distinguishes itself by focusing on volume/market statistics, but does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling getCollectionMarketInfo, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
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 includes 'Use this for questions about collection trading activity or volume,' which gives explicit when-to-use guidance. However, it provides no exclusions or alternatives, so it does not earn the full 5 for explicit when-not/alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 113 tools spanning many chains and asset classes, there is substantial overlap. For example, listPositions and getAllPositions appear to serve the same function, and there are many balance, token discovery, and collection data tools that differ mostly by chain or protocol, making misselection likely.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most tools use camelCase with a verb (baseGetBalances, ethSwapQuote), but some use underscores (nansen_defi_portfolio), others are just bare nouns (wallet, rugcheck), and there are irregularities like solanaBalances instead of solanaGetBalances, plus hederaTokensSwapQuote vs. baseSwapQuote.
The server exposes 113 tools, far beyond the typical well-scoped set. This is an extreme mismatch with the apparent purpose of a wallet/swap server, making discovery and selection difficult for agents.
While the server offers extensive read-only data (balances, market data, NFTs, positions), it lacks core write operations: there is no actual swap execution or token transfer tool, and the referenced emblemCreateVault tool is missing. These are significant gaps that will prevent agents from completing common wallet actions.