opensea_item_owners

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return values (wallets and total count) and distinguishes ERC-721 vs ERC-1155 behavior. It could add pagination/cursor expectations, but the schema hints at that, so the description adds useful behavioral context.

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 compact: two sentences with no filler. Every sentence conveys a distinct useful fact—what it returns and the token-standard distinction.

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 focused list tool, the description adequately communicates the result shape and edge cases. It does not explicitly explain pagination via limit/cursor, but the schema already describes those parameters clearly, so no critical information is missing.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description does not add meaning to any specific parameter; it focuses on tool-level behavior. This matches the baseline of 3 for highly covered schemas.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the owners of an OpenSea NFT.' It is clearly distinct from siblings like opensea_collection_holders because it focuses on a single NFT item, and it adds token-standard nuance that clarifies behavior.

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 context is clear but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given. An agent can infer this tool is for NFT-owner lookups from the name and description, but it never points out when to use this instead of opensea_collection_holders, opensea_item, or related tools.

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