opensea_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the feed is 'live', ordered 'newest first', and covers all event types. It also mentions the filtering capability via event_types. It does not mention pagination details or error handling, but the live-feed ordering and inclusive scope are valuable behavioral traits that go beyond the schema.

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 main purpose. Every clause earns its place: scope, live feed, event types, ordering, collection attachment, and filtering. There is zero redundancy.

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 explains what the feed contains and its ordering, and mentions the filter. However, with no output schema, the agent is left to infer the full response structure beyond the collection association. Pagination is only implied through the cursor parameter. For a feed tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive—some mention of pagination or response fields would improve completeness.

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 adds a note that event_types can filter for a 'trade tape,' which gives context on its purpose but does not provide syntax or format details beyond the schema. The limit and cursor parameters are already well-documented in the schema, and the description adds little extra meaning.

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 'List marketplace-wide OpenSea activity' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from collection-, item-, and profile-specific activity tools by emphasizing 'marketplace-wide' and 'cross-collection.' It enumerates the event types included (sale, listing, offer, transfer, mint), making its scope 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 that this tool is for the global activity feed, not scoped to a particular collection, item, or profile. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the 'marketplace-wide' qualifier implicitly routes the agent away from the scoped siblings. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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