opensea_profile_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention that non-address identifiers (ENS or username) cost an extra resolution lookup and that results are cursor-paginated, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose any auth requirements or rate limits. For a read-heavy list tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then detailing the output and identifier nuances. There is no fluff or redundant wording; every sentence earns its place. This is an exemplary level of conciseness.

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 list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the resource type, the output fields per item, pagination, and identifier handling. It does not describe the full response structure (e.g., presence of a next_page_cursor field), but the schema already covers that. Given the tool's simplicity and the schema coverage, it is reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful context for the identifier parameter by explaining the three accepted types and the extra cost for non-address forms, which goes beyond the schema's simple type list. It also reinforces the pagination semantics via the cursor parameter. This adds value beyond the structured field descriptions.

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's purpose: 'List the NFTs a wallet holds.' It specifies the resource (NFTs) and the action (list), and mentions the key details of the output (collection, rarity rank, best standing listing). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like opensea_profile_collections or opensea_profile_activity, but the scope is 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as opensea_profile_collections, opensea_profile_activity, or opensea_profile_search_items. It does not mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. This is a clear gap.

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