Collection stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: addresses are decoded straight from the chain, the OpenSea slug is checked against the collection before floors are ranked, and the OpenSea view is conditional on OPENSEA_API_KEY. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 dense but well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then explains the chain-decoding behavior, then the optional OpenSea view, and ends with example questions. It earns its length by covering multiple important behaviors, though it could be slightly tightened.

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 read-only stats tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key inputs, the conditional OpenSea behavior, and the kind of questions it answers. It doesn't describe the exact return shape, but with no output schema and a read-only annotation, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about what the collection parameter can be (registry id, ME symbol, or Core address) and explains the openseaSlug behavior, but it doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. 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?

The description opens with a clear verb+resource ('Market + supply stats for a collection') and then enumerates the three accepted identifier forms, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_floor_prices or get_collection_holders. It also explicitly names the OpenSea cross-marketplace extension, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool returns.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it works for collections that marketplace indexes may not cover (e.g., Candy Digital drops) and explains when the OpenSea view is added (if OPENSEA_API_KEY is set or openseaSlug is passed). It also answers concrete user questions ('is the floor up or down this week', 'who holds the most'), which helps an agent match the tool to a user intent.

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