opensea_profile_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses that the result is a cursor-paginated feed, lists the event types returned, mentions the per-event fields (counterparty, price, collection), and states an explicit scope exclusion. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but for a read/list endpoint this is reasonably transparent.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second describes return contents, and the third clarifies accepted identifier forms and scope. Every sentence earns its place.

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 moderately complex list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, accepted identifier types, event categories, per-event fields, pagination, and scope exclusions. It is not fully complete because it does not route the agent away from closely related OpenSea sibling endpoints, but the core calling context is present.

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 identifier, limit, cursor, and event_types. The description mostly restates the identifier accepted formats and the event-type enum; the 'cursor-paginated feed' phrase adds minimal semantic value beyond the cursor's schema description. This is a solid baseline-3 case.

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?

Description states a specific verb-resource pair: 'List a wallet's NFT marketplace activity,' and names concrete event types (sales, listings, offers, transfers, mints). It is scoped to a wallet and to NFT events only, which distinguishes it from collection-level, item-level, and generic token-transfer activity tools.

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 gives clear context—wallet/ENS/username input, NFT-only scope, cursor pagination—and explicitly excludes token transfers and swaps. However, it does not name sibling alternatives such as opensea_collection_activity or opensea_profile_items, or state when to prefer them, so routing guidance is only implied.

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