What is hot on Magic Eden

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

Despite readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds value by disclosing the empty-list behavior ('result says so rather than implying the market is quiet') and clarifying the ranking source (marketplace's own volume). These are behavioral details not captured in annotations, enhancing 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?

The description is compact (two sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds behavioral context without redundancy. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral quirks. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 provides 100% coverage with a description for timeRange including enum values and default. The description only says 'for a time range' without adding meaning about how each value affects results. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but adds no extra semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool returns trending collections from Magic Eden for a given time range, and provides example queries ('what is hot', 'top collections today') that make the purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes from search_collections by focusing on rankings, and the verb 'get' plus resource specification is explicit.

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 concrete usage context through example questions it answers, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as 'use search_collections for name-based lookup'. This is a minor gap given the sibling tools.

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