Top traders of a collection

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

Annotations only cover read-only and open-world status; the description adds substantive behavioral context the annotations cannot: the metric's definitional scope (own fills, all time, buy+sell aggregated), its blind spot (off-marketplace volume), and an interpretation warning that a high-volume wallet may be a collector, market maker, or wash trader, with get_wallet_activity named as the evidence-gathering follow-up.

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 definition and scope are front-loaded in sentence one, followed by routing and caveats; every sentence carries distinct information (routing, marketplace blind spot, intent ambiguity). It is slightly dense and the final sentence could be trimmed, but nothing is filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, metric definition, and interpretive caveats. An agent has everything needed to select and correctly frame the call; only the per-trader field shape is unspecified, which is minor.

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%: the symbol format and the limit bounds/default (max 50, default 10) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., what ordering/ties the limit slices), so 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 first sentence names a specific ranking (wallets by trading volume), the exact source of truth (Magic Eden's own fills, all time, buys and sells combined), and the questions it answers. It is immediately distinguishable from get_collection_sales (topBuyers) and get_collection_holders, which are named explicitly.

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?

It states when to use it ('who trades this most'), when NOT to use it (not a buyer ranking; for recent-window spenders use get_collection_sales topBuyers; for holders use get_collection_holders), and a hard limitation (other marketplaces are invisible). The alternative tools are named with the condition that selects each.

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