opensea_item_depth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output structure (resting listings and offers grouped into price levels) but does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or data freshness. For a read-only lookup, the description adequately conveys the operation's nature, but lacks explicit safety or limitation notes.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently explains the output and the ERC-1155 use case without excessive detail. The structure is clear and no sentences are wasted, though it could be slightly more direct.

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 three required parameters and no output schema. The description explains the return structure (bid/ask ladder with price levels and quantities) and the intended use case. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but for a simple lookup these are not critical. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not explain how to obtain the chain identifier or token_id, nor any format constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Get an OpenSea NFT's order book.' It specifies the resource (NFT) and the output (bid/ask ladder with price levels and quantities). It distinguishes from sibling tools like opensea_item_listings and opensea_item_offers by focusing on aggregated depth rather than raw listings or 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?

The description provides a specific use case: 'Useful for ERC-1155 items where many units trade at different prices.' This gives agents guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The ERC-1155 mention implies a contrast with ERC-721 items.

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