get_market_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals return payload fields (name, price in ETH, buyer/seller addresses, timestamp) and sorting order ('most recent first'). It does not mention pagination behavior or limit/offset handling, but the schema covers those parameters. For a read-only activity feed, this is above-average transparency.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, filter capability, return details. No filler, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds distinct value. Perfectly sized for the tool's moderate complexity.

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 three optional parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description covers return shape, sorting, and filter support. It omits pagination behavior explicitly, but the schema defines limit/offset. For a non-mutating feed tool, this description is nearly complete; a small gap around handling edge cases (e.g., empty result sets) prevents a 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a summary of event types and mentions filtering, which aligns with the enum parameter, but does not go beyond the schema's detailed parameter docs. The price and address details are about return values, not parameters. Thus it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 'Get recent ENS marketplace activity' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It enumerates event types (sales, listings, offers, mints, transfers, renewals, burns) and clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_wallet_portfolio' (portfolio-specific) or 'wash_check' (analysis tool). The purpose is unmistakable.

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 states 'Filter by event type' and lists the event scope, making it clear this is the tool for browsing recent marketplace events. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'for portfolio values use get_wallet_portfolio'), but the context and event list provide sufficient guidance for when this tool is appropriate.

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