getInscriptionsByAddressReturn paginated, fully-detailed Bitcoin Ordinals inscriptions held by a given Bitcoin address (number, content type, traits, satpoint). Use this to display a wallet's NFT-style holdings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-indexed page number for paginating large inscription sets. Omit for the first page. | |
| bitcoinAddress | Yes | Bitcoin address whose inscriptions to fetch. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it specifies pagination ('paginated') and the level of detail returned ('fully-detailed'), including specific fields. This complements the annotations without redundancy.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key details, followed by a clear use case. Every word earns its place; no fluff 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?
This is a simple read tool with good annotations and complete schema coverage. The description covers purpose, pagination, and return fields, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It could mention address format requirements or empty-result behavior, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 covers both parameters with descriptive explanations (bitcoinAddress and page). The description reinforces that results are paginated and address-specific but doesn't add new semantics beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('Bitcoin Ordinals inscriptions held by a given Bitcoin address') along with key fields ('number, content type, traits, satpoint'). It also adds a use case ('display a wallet's NFT-style holdings') that distinguishes it from other inscription-related tools like getInscriptionInfo or getCollectionInscriptions.
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 clearly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to display a wallet's NFT-style holdings.' This provides a clear context for usage, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. That's enough for a clear read-only query tool.
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.