opensea_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the data is public, lists the exact fields returned, and explicitly states that balances, portfolio value, and P/L are not exposed. This sets accurate expectations about scope, though it doesn't discuss potential response shape or error 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?

Two tightly written sentences. The main action is front-loaded, followed by a list of return fields and then a deliberate exclusion note. Every sentence contributes information; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 is complete for a single-parameter, no-output-schema read tool. It explains input resolution, return contents, and explicit exclusions. Minor omissions like response format or error handling are not critical for such a simple profile lookup.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the schema by naming the three accepted identifier formats (wallet address, ENS name, OpenSea username), which adds slight context, but it does not provide additional syntax or validation details beyond what the schema already documents.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a public OpenSea profile.' It enumerates exactly what is returned (display name, avatar/banner imagery, verification flag, linked social handles) and what is intentionally excluded (balances, portfolio value, P/L). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling profile-related tools like opensea_profile_activity or opensea_profile_items.

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?

Clear context is given: use this to fetch the public profile metadata for a wallet resolved from an address, ENS name, or OpenSea username. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is precise enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate versus the other opensea_profile_* siblings.

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