get_collection_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the per-call price and payment mechanism (x402), the fact that currency varies per field (*_currency fields may be ETH, USDC, HYPE), and the full set of returned data. It does not cover freshness (real-time vs cached), rate limits, or failure behavior for an invalid slug, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then cost, then parameter format, then a currency caveat — each sentence carries distinct information and none repeats the schema or annotations. The field enumeration is long but justified because there is no output schema.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers returns, cost, parameter derivation, and price-currency semantics, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Only data freshness and error behavior on a bad slug are left unstated.

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 earns above baseline by explaining how to derive the value ('the OpenSea slug from the collection URL: opensea.io/collection/<slug>') and adding a second example beyond the schema's 'azuki', which is operational knowledge the schema does not supply.

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 and resource ('Get OpenSea NFT collection market data') and then enumerates the exact payload (floor price, 1/7/30-day and lifetime sales/volume, unique owners, supply, creation date), so an agent knows precisely what it receives. No siblings exist to disambiguate against, and none is needed.

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 makes the call context clear ('in one call', market-data snapshot for a given collection) and discloses the $0.002 x402 cost, which is a real usage consideration for an agent deciding whether to call. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming an alternative, but with no sibling tools that omission costs little.

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