List OpenSea collections ranked by watchlist additions, with floor price and stats, to spot demand before trading volume.
List the most watchlisted OpenSea collections. Returns the collections most added to watchlists on OpenSea, with their current floor price and headline stats. A demand signal that leads trading volume, since watchlisting precedes buying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Collections to return, 1-100 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses what is returned ('current floor price and headline stats') and implies a read-only listing operation, but does not mention ordering direction, pagination behavior, or freshness limits. It adds moderate value but leaves room for ambiguity about edge-case behavior.
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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core action. There is minor redundancy between 'most watchlisted' and 'most added to watchlists', which repeats the same idea, but overall every sentence earns its place and the wording is tight.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, what it returns, and why an agent would use it. Missing details like explicit ordering or pagination are minor for a listing endpoint like this.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter ('limit' is described as 'Collections to return, 1-100'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 pair ('List the most watchlisted OpenSea collections') and immediately clarifies the unique metric ('most added to watchlists'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like opensea_collections or opensea_rankings, which could otherwise sound similar, without needing to name them.
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 usage context: 'A demand signal that leads trading volume, since watchlisting precedes buying.' This tells an agent when the tool is relevant (assessing demand before price movement). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.