getOwnedInscriptionIdsReturn the list of Bitcoin Ordinals inscription IDs owned by a given Bitcoin address. Lightweight ID-only response — use getInscriptionsByAddress for full inscription metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bitcoinAddress | Yes | Bitcoin address whose owned inscription IDs to fetch. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is 'Lightweight ID-only response', implying limited payload and no metadata, which helps the agent understand response characteristics.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds a clear alternative without unnecessary detail. Every word contributes value.
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 one parameter and rich annotations, the description is complete enough. It states the input, the output (list of IDs), and the alternative for richer data. However, it does not describe edge cases (e.g., empty address results) or return format details, which would be expected if no output schema existed.
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 input schema covers the single parameter bitcoinAddress with a clear description ('Bitcoin address whose owned inscription IDs to fetch'), so coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, hence baseline of 3.
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 explicitly states the verb and resource: 'Return the list of Bitcoin Ordinals inscription IDs owned by a given Bitcoin address.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling getInscriptionsByAddress by noting this is a 'Lightweight ID-only response' versus full metadata.
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 explicit guidance: use this tool when only inscription IDs are needed, and explicitly recommends getInscriptionsByAddress for full metadata. This directly addresses when-to-use and when-not-to-use.
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.