KOINE pieces currently for sale, cheapest first, so an agent can COLLECT. Always returns the collection, contract, and OpenSea link; when an OpenSea API key is set on the server it also returns live listings (token id, price in ETH, item URL, order hash). Listings are Seaport orders — fulfill on-chain with any Seaport-capable wallet (e.g. the opensea-js SDK) from a funded address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that results are sorted cheapest first, that collection/contract/OpenSea link are always returned, that live listings appear only when an OpenSea API key is configured, and that fulfillment requires a funded Seaport-capable wallet.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the essential purpose and sort order, then return behavior, then action implications. No filler or repeated information.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sort order, return fields, conditional output, and next steps. It is slightly compact on whether the result is a list of items, but it remains sufficient for correct invocation.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about the server-side OpenSea key that changes output, which is more useful than parameter details.
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 states a specific action and resource: list KOINE pieces currently for sale, sorted cheapest first, for collection. The phrase 'currently for sale' and the mention of Seaport orders separate it from siblings like koine_get_piece or koine_list_genesis.
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 makes it clear this tool is for collecting/buying KOINE pieces and explains the on-chain fulfillment path. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to call it.
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.
The koine_ and nonce_ prefixes cleanly separate two distinct collection workflows, and within each prefix every tool addresses a unique action or resource. Even the two verify tools are easily distinguished by collection prefix and their exact verification behavior.
Tool names share a clear collection-prefix snake_case scheme, making grouping and selection predictable. However, not every name follows the same verb_noun form—info, census, spec, listings, and provenance are noun-style while mine, get, list, and verify are verb-style—so the pattern is consistent but not perfectly uniform.
13 tools is well-scoped for a server covering two distinct on-chain art collections with read, discovery, verification, and minting workflows. Each tool maps to a real operation, with no obvious filler or redundant entries.
The NONCE half covers the full lifecycle well: spec, mine, mint_packet, verify, info, census, and get_piece. The KOINE half covers discovery, provenance, listings, and verification, but the only acquisition route is external Seaport fulfillment, with no KOINE purchase or fulfillment packet equivalent to nonce_mint_packet—a minor but real gap.