opensea_activity

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the returned data types (sales, listings, offers, transfers, mints), ordering (newest first), and that each event includes its collection. It also notes the ability to filter. While it omits pagination mechanics and rate limits, the provided information is substantial and directly relevant to an agent's expectations.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence establishes the core purpose and scope, the second adds filtering guidance. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool.

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 listing tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what events are included, ordering, collection attribution, and filtering. It does not explicitly mention pagination, but the cursor parameter is self-explanatory from the schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context 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 schema already fully describes all three parameters (limit, cursor, event_types) with clear descriptions and an enum. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, only referencing `event_types` for filtering. Since coverage is 100%, the baseline 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 lists marketplace-wide OpenSea activity, explicitly mentioning it is a cross-collection feed covering sales, listings, offers, transfers, and mints. It distinguishes itself from collection-specific tools by repeatedly emphasizing 'marketplace-wide' and 'cross-collection', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 context for when to use this tool: for a broad, live feed across all collections. It mentions filtering with `event_types` for a trade tape, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like collection-specific activity tools. The implication is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage, though explicit guidance on when not to use it is missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.