get_collection_listings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the tool returns active listings and prices, but does not disclose pagination behavior (limit default 20, max 60), the shape of results, rate limits, or what happens for an invalid collection_symbol. For a read-only listing endpoint this is thin behavioral context beyond the basic return description.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the return content. No redundancy, though it could be slightly more information-dense given the lack of annotations.

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 annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the what and the return unit (BTC) but omits pagination behavior, error cases, and how it differs from sibling inscription-listing tools, leaving gaps an agent must infer.

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%, and the schema already documents limit, offset, and collection_symbol semantics including defaults and bounds. The description adds only that prices are in BTC, which is about output rather than parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (active marketplace listings for an Ordinals collection on Magic Eden), and clarifies the return (listed inscriptions with prices in BTC). It is clear, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_collection_inscriptions, which could be confusing since both concern inscriptions for a collection.

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?

Implies usage by specifying 'active marketplace listings' and 'prices in BTC', so an agent can infer this is for marketplace/pricing data versus raw inscription data. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives like get_collection_inscriptions.

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