opensea_collection_trait_offers

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 it returns 'standing offers' and 'price levels with the trait type and value attached', giving a sense of the output format. But it does not mention pagination behavior, any limitations, or that it is a read-only operation. It is adequate but not rich.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient with no fluff, though it could benefit from addressing the trait specification gap. Structure is good, but the missing information prevents a perfect score.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain how the trait value is specified, which is central to the tool's purpose. It also does not mention pagination handling beyond the cursor parameter. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly without understanding trait scoping, making it incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. However, the description introduces the concept of a 'specific trait value' but the input schema only has slug, limit, cursor, and sort_direction—no trait parameter. This creates confusion about how the trait is specified, actively misleading the agent. The description adds no clarification on parameter usage beyond the schema, and the mismatch lowers the score.

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 'List' and the resource 'OpenSea collection's trait offer book'. It explicitly contrasts with whole-collection offers ('rather than the whole collection'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like opensea_collection_offers. The trait-specific scoping is the core differentiator and is clearly conveyed.

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 a concrete use case: 'Useful for pricing rare-trait items against the collection floor.' It implies this tool is for trait-specific offers, differentiating from whole-collection offers. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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