getInscriptionTraitsFetch the trait/attribute set for a single Bitcoin inscription (NFT-style traits used for collection rarity ranking). Returns an empty array when no traits are indexed.
| 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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the empty-array fallback when no traits are indexed, providing a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations. No contradiction detected.
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 two concise sentences, with the action and primary resource front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the return fallback (empty array) and the clear purpose. It does not detail the trait object structure, but given the low complexity and strong schema coverage, this is sufficient for selection and invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, with the only parameter clearly documented. The description adds no new parameter semantics, just reinforces that it operates on a single inscription. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema already provides complete parameter information.
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 'Fetch the trait/attribute set for a single Bitcoin inscription' with a specific verb and resource, and further distinguishes itself by mentioning NFT-style traits for collection rarity ranking. This sets it apart from sibling tools like getInscriptionInfo or getInscriptionActivity.
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 this tool (to retrieve traits for rarity ranking) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The specialized purpose implicitly guides selection, but explicit exclusions are absent.
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.