Solana NFT collection snapshot from Magic Eden: floor price (SOL + lamports), listed count, 24h average price and 7-day volume. The floor is the lowest CURRENT ask (not a guaranteed sale price) and moves continuously. Factual snapshot, NOT a recommendation. NOT financial advice. Requires ?symbol=.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Magic Eden collection symbol, e.g. mad_lads or okay_bears. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states 'Factual snapshot,' which implies a read-only operation without side effects, and includes disclaimers about not being a recommendation. However, it does not explicitly declare that no transactions or modifications will occur, leaving some ambiguity.
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 concise and well-structured, with a clear first sentence stating the core function, a note about the floor price meaning, and a disclaimer. No redundant information is present, though the disclaimer could be considered slightly extra but is relevant context.
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 description covers the data returned, clarifies a key metric (floor price), and states the required parameter. It does not specify the output format, but since no output schema exists, this is acceptable. The context is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what input is needed.
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 schema fully describes the single 'symbol' parameter with type and example, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description merely repeats the requirement without adding extra semantic detail, so the baseline score of 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's purpose: it provides a snapshot of a Solana NFT collection from Magic Eden, listing specific data points (floor price, listed count, 24h average price, 7-day volume). This is a specific verb (snapshot) and resource (NFT collection), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on NFT collections.
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 mentions that a symbol parameter is required and explains the meaning of the floor price, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no reference to other tools for comparison or conditions under which this tool should be chosen, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.