getInscriptionInfoFetch metadata for a single Bitcoin Ordinals inscription: content type, content URL, current owner, satpoint, inscription number, genesis transaction, and timestamp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inscriptionId | Yes | Inscription ID in the form '<txid>i<index>' (e.g. 'b1f...i0'). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering the primary behavioral safety aspect. The description adds the content of the response but no additional behavioral caveats (e.g., error handling, data availability, or ordering). Since annotations carry the safety burden, a score of 3 is appropriate for a simple fetch operation.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that states the action (Fetch metadata) and lists the specific data returned. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no filler or redundant information.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the expected metadata fields, giving the agent a clear picture of the response. It does not describe potential error responses or edge cases (e.g., invalid inscriptionId), but for a simple single-item fetch with one parameter, this level of detail is adequate.
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 description for inscriptionId is detailed (format '<txid>i<index>' with example), providing 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific semantics beyond referring to a 'single Bitcoin Ordinals inscription,' so the baseline of 3 is warranted.
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 fetches metadata for a single Bitcoin Ordinals inscription and enumerates the specific fields returned (content type, content URL, owner, satpoint, inscription number, genesis transaction, timestamp). The phrase 'single' distinguishes it from related sibling tools like getInscriptionActivity or getCollectionInfo, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 implies usage for retrieving detailed metadata of one inscription, which is distinct from activity, traits, or collection-level tools. It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools for contrast, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
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.