opensea_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains that the tool returns one NFT and enumerates the response content, which covers the main behavior. However, it does not disclose error behavior, missing-token handling, rate limits, or any other side effects or prerequisites beyond chain values.

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 compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the tool's core purpose, enumerates the returned fields, and gives a practical dependency. Every sentence earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the key return fields (traits, rarity rank, current owner, parent collection, best listing, best offer) and names all three required input parameters. It omits details like exact response formatting, authentication, or error conditions, but for a focused single-item lookup the description is reasonably complete.

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 already has 100% description coverage with clear definitions for chain, token_id, and contract_address. The description restates that the tool is identified by chain/contract/token but adds no real new meaning beyond that; it does mention the /opensea/chains endpoint, though the schema already says chain values come from there.

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 tool gets a single OpenSea NFT by chain, contract address, and token id, and lists the concrete returned data (traits, rarity rank, owner, collection, best listing, best offer). It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling item tools like opensea_item_listings or opensea_item_offers.

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?

Usage context is implied: it is clearly a single-item lookup returning a summary with market data. However, the description does not explain when to choose this over opensea_item_listings, opensea_item_offers, or opensea_item_activity, and gives no exclusions or alternative references beyond a chain-values dependency.

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