opensea_profile_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals the tool returns a cursor-paginated feed, lists the event types included (sales, listings, offers, transfers, mints), the fields per event (counterparty, price, collection), and explicitly excludes token transfers and swaps. It also mentions accepted identifier formats. This is comprehensive transparency for a read-only listing operation, covering both what is returned and what is not.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The main action ('List a wallet's NFT marketplace activity') is front-loaded, followed by return format, identifier acceptance, and scope exclusions. Every sentence adds necessary information; 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?

Without an output schema, the description provides a good outline of the return feed: cursor-paginated events with counterparty, price, and collection. It also explains event types and exclusions. It does not mention pagination details like the next_page_cursor field, but the cursor parameter references it, and the description implies pagination. It could be more explicit about response fields or sorting, but for a listing tool this is adequate and covers the core context needed to call it 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 schema already documents all parameter descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying the identifier accepts wallet address, ENS name, or OpenSea username (schema only says 'Wallet address, ENS name, or OpenSea username' which is already explicit, but description reinforces). More importantly, it explains the event types that are included and the exclusion of token transfers and swaps, giving semantic context to the 'event_types' parameter. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'Comma-separated event types' and aids correct usage.

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 lists a wallet's NFT marketplace activity, specifying exactly what events are included (sales, listings, offers, transfers, mints) and what data is returned (counterparty, price, collection). It explicitly scopes to NFT events and excludes token transfers and swaps, distinguishing it from general activity tools like opensea_activity and from item/collection-specific activity tools. The verb 'List' and resource 'wallet's NFT marketplace activity' are precise and unambiguous.

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 indicates the tool targets a wallet's activity via wallet address, ENS name, or OpenSea username, and scopes to NFT events only, excluding token transfers and swaps. It implicitly suggests when to use this tool (for wallet activity) versus sibling tools like opensea_collection_activity or opensea_item_activity, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions. It is clear about what this tool is for, but could be more explicit about when *not* to use it.

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