opensea_top_movers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns collections with current floor and rolling one-hour/one-day stats, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires any authentication, whether results are sorted ascending/descending, or what happens with the optional limit parameter. For a read-only listing tool, the lack of annotations is partially mitigated by the description's clear read-only nature, but there is still no detail on pagination, default limit, or error behavior.

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-loads the core action and resource, and uses the second sentence to disambiguate from a sibling. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, the return content (collections with floor and rolling stats), and the sibling distinction. It doesn't specify the default limit or whether the list is sorted by floor move or volume move, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and call it correctly in most cases.

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% for the single parameter (limit, 1-100), so the schema already documents it. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, but it also doesn't need to. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('biggest movers on OpenSea'), and the exact selection criterion ('largest recent floor-price and volume moves'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling opensea_rankings by noting that rankings sorts by score rather than by change, which is strong differentiation.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (opensea_rankings) and explains the difference in ranking logic, giving an agent a clear rule for when to choose this tool over the sibling. This is exactly the kind of when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance that earns a 5.

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