opensea_collection

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It does mention that delisted and blacklisted collections return 404 rather than an empty payload, which is a useful edge-case behavior. It also specifies that it returns 'public marketplace metadata', indicating a read-only operation. It does not cover authentication or rate limits, but those are not critical for a GET-style tool. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 reasonably concise given the amount of returned data. It leads with the main purpose, then lists the fields, and finishes with the 404 edge case. It is structured and readable. Slightly long but justified by the enumerations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return data. It does so thoroughly by listing the metadata, stats, and the 404 case. It covers the key aspects an agent needs to know to call the tool correctly. It does not explain how to derive a slug, but that is likely a domain detail that can be assumed.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'slug' with description 'OpenSea collection slug'. The tool description does not add any further meaning about the slug (e.g., how to obtain it, format, or example). Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('an OpenSea collection'), and enumerates the returned data (metadata, trading statistics, verification flag, etc.). It is specific about scope ('one NFT collection'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with the many sibling opensea_collection_* tools (e.g., activity, holders, offers), so an agent must infer which one is the base collection info tool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only describes what it does, not when to select it over opensea_collection_items or opensea_collection_offers. There is no mention of 'use this for basic collection info' or 'for activities use opensea_collection_activity'. The agent is left to infer from the name and description.

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