openseaGetCollectionStatsGet detailed stats for an NFT collection including floor price, volume, sales, owners, and market cap. Use collection slug (e.g., 'boredapeyachtclub'), not the collection name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collectionSlug | Yes | Collection slug (e.g., 'boredapeyachtclub', 'cryptopunks') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context about the slug parameter and the specific stats returned, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, response format, or error behavior. This is adequate for a simple read-only 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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a targeted parameter tip. Every word contributes to clarity, with no redundant phrasing or filler.
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 one parameter and good annotations, the description is mostly complete. It lists the key return metrics and provides parameter guidance. However, it does not specify timeframes or whether stats are current or historical, which could be a minor gap given no output schema exists. Still, it sufficiently covers the core use case.
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 coverage is 100% and already describes collectionSlug with examples. The description adds value by emphasizing 'not the collection name', which is a meaningful clarification that can prevent user errors. This goes beyond the schema, so a score above baseline is warranted.
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's function: 'Get detailed stats for an NFT collection' and enumerates specific data points (floor price, volume, sales, owners, market cap). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getCollectionVolume or openseaGetCollectionActivity, which focus on narrower scopes.
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 a clear usage context (getting collection stats) and parameter guidance ('Use collection slug, not the collection name'), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit relative to sibling tools.
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.