opensea_item_activity

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return content (sales, listings, offers, transfers, mints) and key fields, and the verb 'List' implies a safe read operation. It doesn't discuss pagination, but the schema covers limit and cursor.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the filtering example 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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does enough: it names required inputs by implication, describes response fields, and gives a filter pattern. Cursor/limit mechanics rely on the schema and are not critical to successful invocation.

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 covers all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining how to use event_types and enumerating accepted event categories with a usage example.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: listing one NFT's OpenSea event history. The enumerated event types and single-NFT scope clearly distinguish it from collection-level activity and item listing/offer tools.

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?

Clearly frames when to use it (single NFT event history) and gives a concrete filtering example for ownership trails. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid, but the single-NFT vs collection distinction implies the usage boundary.

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