Sales over a period

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

Even with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavior: it reads the Magic Eden API feed only, never fills gaps with estimates, reports how far back the feed was read, indicates if older sales exist beyond the page budget, and clarifies that execution marketplace is recorded per row. This goes far beyond the annotations, disclosing pagination, completeness, and sourcing quirks.

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 long but information-dense: every clause adds functional or behavioral detail. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides examples and caveats. While it could be tightened, the length is justified by the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema. It is structured logically and not redundant.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values (aggregates, per-day series, per-name breakdown, order book vs AMM split), limitations (feed only, no estimates, pagination), and inputs. An agent can understand exactly what the tool returns and how to interpret results, making it fully self-sufficient despite missing an output schema.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples for nameContains ('Ohtani' or 'Batman') and explaining maxPages in context ('busy collections need more to cover long windows'), plus clarifying that names come from the chain's asset index. This helps an agent use the parameters effectively beyond the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource-scope ('Sales for a collection over the last N days') and enumerates what the tool returns (aggregates, series, breakdowns). It also lists concrete questions it answers, and its scope (collection-level, Magic Eden feed only) distinguishes it from siblings like get_recent_sales or get_collection_stats without needing to name them.

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 clearly states the use case: sales for a specific collection over a time window, with filtering/grouping. It gives example queries and notes the data source and limitations. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer applicability.

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