opensea_item_offers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is returned (standing bids with price, quantity, validity window, marketplace, maker), and the important edge case that an item with no offers returns an empty list rather than 404. It does not disclose pagination behavior despite limit/cursor parameters, but the core behavior is well communicated.

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?

Three sentences, with the primary action and scope front-loaded, followed by return contents and an edge case. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 description covers the core purpose, return contents, and a key edge case, which is sufficient for a simple item-level read tool. The main missing piece is explicit pagination guidance, since limit and cursor are present in the schema but the description still says 'Returns every standing bid'; an agent might not realize multiple pages may be needed.

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 fully documents all five parameters. The description adds context about the offer content but does not add meaning to chain, contract_address, token_id, limit, or cursor beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since structured data carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('List standing offers for an OpenSea NFT') and clarifies scope to a single NFT, which separates it from collection-level offer tools like opensea_collection_offers and listing tools like opensea_item_listings. It also enumerates the returned fields, leaving no doubt about what the tool does.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need standing bids on one specific NFT. It notes the empty-list behavior for items with no offers, which helps an agent avoid misinterpreting a valid empty response. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'one NFT' scope provides clear context.

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