openseaGetTrendingCollectionsFind trending NFT collections by volume, market cap, or price changes. Use this for market research and discovering popular collections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| next | No | Pagination cursor for next page | |
| limit | No | Number of collections to return | |
| chainId | No | Chain ID (1=Ethereum, 137=Polygon, etc.) | |
| orderBy | No | Sort collections by this metric | seven_day_volume |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior or data freshness) beyond what annotations imply, but it does not contradict them either.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence serves a role: the first states what it does, the second gives usage context. Excellent conciseness.
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 read-only list tool, the description covers the core action and intent. However, there is no output schema and many sibling tools that do collection rankings, so a note about OpenSea-specific trending logic or return values would improve completeness. As is, it is adequate but not highly informative.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions sorting by volume/market cap/price changes, which aligns with the orderBy parameter, but it doesn't add any details beyond what the schema already provides for the other parameters.
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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and identifies the resource ('trending NFT collections') along with the sorting dimensions (volume, market cap, price changes). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getTopCollectionsByVolume or getTopCollectionsByFloor, so it misses the top score.
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 gives a clear usage context ('Use this for market research and discovering popular collections') but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. Given the many similar sibling tools for fetching collections, the lack of when-to-use/alternatives guidance is a noticeable gap.
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.