opensea_profile_created

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It does reveal that results include floor price and trading statistics, but it omits pagination behavior, rate limits, or any potential side effects. It is a read operation, but that is implied rather than stated.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and return content are front-loaded, and the use case is appended as a second sentence. Every clause contributes value.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential return fields (floor price, trading stats) and the input identifier. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or cursor usage, but those are self-explanatory from the schema. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters like sort_by, sort_direction, limit, or cursor—it only echoes the identifier's meaning. It does not compensate for the schema's own descriptions, which are already sufficient.

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 collections a wallet created, distinguishing from held ones, and specifies it returns floor price and trading statistics. It also provides a concrete use case (finding a creator's body of work from a contract deployer address), which makes the purpose 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?

It explicitly contrasts with collections a wallet holds, implying a different tool for that purpose, and gives a specific scenario (finding a creator's work). However, it does not name the alternative sibling tool (e.g., opensea_profile_collections), so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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