openseaGetCollectionActivityMonitor recent activity for an NFT collection: sales, transfers, mints, listings, and offers. Use this to track market activity and recent trades.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| next | No | Pagination cursor for next page | |
| limit | No | Number of events to return | |
| eventType | No | Filter by event type (omit for all events) | |
| collectionSlug | Yes | Collection slug (e.g., 'boredapeyachtclub') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the event-type scope but does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination support (via 'next' parameter) or the 'recent activity only' limitation, which are relevant for an agent invoking this tool.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.
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?
The tool has a simple schema with well-documented parameters and rich annotations, and the description explains the core function and use case. However, it omits explicit mention of return format or pagination behavior, and with no output schema, the agent gets no information about what the response contains beyond the tool's name and event types. This leaves room for improvement in guidance.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, including the eventType enum and pagination cursor. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond listing the event types, which already appear in the schema enum. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 monitors recent activity for an NFT collection and enumerates the event types (sales, transfers, mints, listings, offers), making its specific purpose and scope immediately clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like openseaGetCollectionStats or openseaGetNFTListings by focusing on activity events rather than aggregated stats or specific listing/offer details.
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 usage context ('Use this to track market activity and recent trades') and implies this is the right tool for monitoring general activity. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for specific use cases (e.g., fetching a single listing), falling short of the highest guideline standard.
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.