opensea_item_activity

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 tool returns event history with counterparties, price, and transaction hash, and mentions filtering via event_types. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or any potential side effects (though it's clearly a read operation). It adds some value beyond the schema but lacks depth on return structure and edge cases.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second provides a concrete filter example. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place, making it concise and efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It lists the key fields (counterparties, price, transaction hash) and event types, which covers the essential information. It does not detail pagination or response structure, but the cursor parameter in the schema covers pagination. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the schema's thorough parameter descriptions, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds an example for event_types (SALE,TRANSFER) and clarifies the tool's scope (single NFT). However, it does not elaborate on limit, cursor, or chain beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 lists one OpenSea NFT's event history, specifying the event types (sales, listings, offers, transfers, mints) and key fields (counterparties, price, transaction hash). It distinguishes from siblings like opensea_collection_activity (collection-level) and opensea_item_offers (offers only) by explicitly scoping to a single NFT.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (listing event history for a single NFT) and includes a filter example. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as comparing with opensea_collection_activity or opensea_item_offers. The scoping to 'one NFT' implies usage but lacks explicit exclusions.

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