Floor prices (Magic Eden only)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds concrete behavioral constraints: Magic Eden symbols and rows only, no other marketplace or currency, and independence from an OpenSea key. It does not mention failure modes or data freshness, but those are minor for a simple read-only lookup.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and scope, then states exclusions, then routes to relevant sibling tools. It is dense but every sentence serves a purpose; the repeated 'Magic Eden only' emphasis is intentional and not padding.

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-only tool with fully documented schema, the description supplies all needed context: source marketplace, currency, input type, size limit, exclusions, and fallback tools. No output schema exists, but the description's 'returns Magic Eden rows' plus the stated floor-price-in-SOL behavior is enough for correct invocation.

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% and the single symbols parameter already has type, pattern, min/max length, min/max items, and a description. The description restates that it takes Magic Eden symbols and supports up to 10 collections, adding slight provenance context but not materially going 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 first sentence states a specific verb ('returns current floor price') with the resource (up to 10 collections) and a precise scope (Magic Eden only, in SOL). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_collection_stats and search_collections, so an agent can identify it without ambiguity.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: for Magic Eden-only floor prices in SOL. It names get_collection_stats as the alternative for cross-marketplace comparison and explains why that tool is different, and also instructs agents to use search_collections first when only a human-readable collection name is known.

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