opensea_rankings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the returned data shape (ranking score, floor price, rolling stats) and board semantics, but it omits operational details like default ranking/timeframe when parameters are omitted, pagination page-size defaults, or data freshness. This is adequate but not deeply 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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then specifies return contents, then defines the ranking-board variants. 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?

The tool has four optional parameters, no output schema, and no enums, so the description needs to explain the parameter space. It covers ranking values and return fields, but the timeframe parameter's valid values are unknown, and the behavior when optional parameters are omitted is unexplained. An agent could still make an incorrect call without guessing at timeframe formats.

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%, but the parameter descriptions are mostly terse (e.g., ranking is just 'Ranking board'). The description adds real meaning by enumerating valid ranking values and what each computes, substantially improving the agent's ability to choose the right ranking parameter. Other parameters like timeframe remain under-specified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List ranked OpenSea collections.' It further differentiates the three ranking boards—TRENDING, TOP, NEW—by their exact ranking logic, which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling collection-list tools like opensea_collections or opensea_search_collections.

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 on when each ranking board is appropriate (momentum, volume, newly launched), so an agent can choose the right ranking mode. However, it never names alternatives or states conditions for using this tool over siblings such as opensea_top_movers or opensea_most_watched; the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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