Most of the letters in my Magnolia typeface have ball terminals. But as I don't read Icelandic or Anglo-Saxon, I can't really tell if it's okay for an eth to have one.
Is this an acceptable/good eth?

A comment about Archer on Typographica, presumably from a native Icelandic speaker, seems to argue that a ball-terminal on the eth might be overdoing it.
FWIW, I recently looked at eths in quite a stack of Faroese books to see what kinds of eths they like to use. Granted this was mostly text type, but the main question there seems to be how curved (≈ more traditional) or straight (≈ more current) the ascender is, and how to incorporate the crossbar. There seems to be quite a strong custom of leaving the top of the ascender weak, without a terminal; the approach proposed by Briem, i.e. deducing the ascender from the parenthesis, suggests this too – although he says you can also use the numeral 9 as a starting point.
So, dunno, does your 9 have a ball?
I'm Icelandic. It's a very readable eth and looks fine. However, ball terminals not being usual on eths it could strike some natives as a bit "foreign," i.e. it does give away the fact that the typeface wasn't designed by someone who uses the language.
Taking a look at the typeface's 9 and going from there is a good idea. But really, Icelanders being used to finding nothing, a ligature or, at best, a striked d, in the eth spot, this is great.
If you leave the terminal on I would suggest slanting the crossbar just a tiny bit more, though.
And that OverKill eth looks hideous.
Captured from web.archive.org on 1 Jan 2015. view this capture