getInscriptionActivityReturn the inscription transfer history for a given Bitcoin address (incoming and outgoing inscription movements with timestamps and counterparties), paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-indexed page number for activity pagination. | |
| bitcoinAddress | Yes | Bitcoin address whose inscription activity to retrieve. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results include incoming/outgoing movements with timestamps and counterparties, and that results are paginated. This is useful but does not disclose additional traits like data freshness or rate limits, and the description does not contradict annotations.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes all key details (incoming/outgoing, timestamps, counterparties, pagination) without any wasted words or repetition.
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 read-only tool with two parameters and good annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and mentions pagination. It lacks details on edge cases or return format specifics, but overall it is complete enough for expected usage.
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?
Both parameters have complete schema descriptions: 'bitcoinAddress' is 'Bitcoin address whose inscription activity to retrieve' and 'page' is '1-indexed page number for activity pagination'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond referencing pagination, which is already in 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 description starts with a specific verb and resource ('Return the inscription transfer history for a given Bitcoin address'), and further details incoming/outgoing movements with timestamps and counterparties, plus pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like getInscriptionsByAddress or getBRC20Activity.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need transfer history for a Bitcoin address. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use 'inscriptionTransferActivity' or that this is not for current holdings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 113 tools spanning many chains and asset classes, there is substantial overlap. For example, listPositions and getAllPositions appear to serve the same function, and there are many balance, token discovery, and collection data tools that differ mostly by chain or protocol, making misselection likely.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most tools use camelCase with a verb (baseGetBalances, ethSwapQuote), but some use underscores (nansen_defi_portfolio), others are just bare nouns (wallet, rugcheck), and there are irregularities like solanaBalances instead of solanaGetBalances, plus hederaTokensSwapQuote vs. baseSwapQuote.
The server exposes 113 tools, far beyond the typical well-scoped set. This is an extreme mismatch with the apparent purpose of a wallet/swap server, making discovery and selection difficult for agents.
While the server offers extensive read-only data (balances, market data, NFTs, positions), it lacks core write operations: there is no actual swap execution or token transfer tool, and the referenced emblemCreateVault tool is missing. These are significant gaps that will prevent agents from completing common wallet actions.