opensea_collection_depth

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It describes the output format (price levels, quantities) and the concept (depth chart) but does not mention potential limits such as number of levels, pagination, or whether the returned data is restricted to top levels. It is not misleading, but it leaves some behavioral details open.

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 front-loaded with the key purpose and return structure, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence states what the tool does, the second explains the return format, and the third provides context ('depth chart behind OpenSea's own collection page') and a use case ('fastest way to see thickness above the floor'). No wasted words.

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?

This is a simple, single-parameter tool with no annotations, and the description provides sufficient context to understand what the tool does and how the output is organized. It does yield the exact return schema but conceptually describes the ladder. Some details like price-level grouping or typical number of levels are not specified, but the core call action is fully documented.

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 only parameter, slug, is already fully described by the schema ('OpenSea collection slug') with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra parameter detail, which is fine but does not push the score above the baseline. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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 resource (OpenSea collection), the action (get order book), and the exact return shape (full bid/ask ladder, resting listings/offers grouped into price levels). It differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning it is the depth chart behind OpenSea's collection page, which is distinct from tools like opensea_collection or opensea_collection_offers that serve different purposes.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: when you need the depth chart behind OpenSea's own collection page and the fastest way to gauge book density above the floor. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer opensea_collection_offers), so it misses the top score but is sufficiently clear for most uses.

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