opensea_collection_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content and pagination behavior, and by saying 'List items' it implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, or error cases, but for a listing tool this is a reasonable amount of coverage.

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 very concise: two full sentences and a clarifying example. It front-loads the main purpose, then explains pagination and filtering with a concrete example. There is no filler or repetition; every piece serves then.

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?

Given that all 11 parameters have schema descriptions, the tool description covers the central behaviors: pagination, filter combining, and what the result contains. It does not mention sort_by/sort_direction or a default limit, but those are straightforward from the schema. Overall the description is complete enough for correct use.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains how cursor works, that filters combine, and gives a concrete example of using traits and listed_only together. The schema descriptions are already thorough, but the description enhances their applicability substantially.

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 it lists items in an OpenSea collection and specifies the returned data (traits, rarity, listing, last sale). It is distinct from sibling tools like opensea_collection_rarest_items or opensea_collection_search_items because it focuses on the general paginated list, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or contrast them.

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 usage context: it explains how to page with cursor, and it explains that filters (listed_only, traits, price, rarity) combine to narrow results. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over siblings, so no exclusions are mentioned.

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