getRunesActivityReturn the Rune transfer history for a given Bitcoin address (etching, mints, sends, receives) with timestamps, amounts, and counterparties. Paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-indexed page number for activity pagination. | |
| bitcoinAddress | Yes | Bitcoin address whose rune activity to retrieve. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by specifying the activity types covered, the returned fields (timestamps, amounts, counterparties), and pagination. No contradiction with 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by supporting details about activity types and output fields. No redundant or extraneous 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?
For a read-only tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool returns, the input, and pagination. It lacks details like page size or error handling, but these are not critical for selection and invocation. The annotations provide strong safety context.
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 both parameters explicitly described (bitcoinAddress and page). The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema; it just restates the address input and mentions pagination, which the schema already covers. Baseline 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 clearly identifies the resource ('Rune transfer history') and input ('given Bitcoin address'). It also enumerates the activity types included (etching, mints, sends, receives) and the fields returned, making it distinct from sibling tools like getRuneBalances or getRuneInfo.
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 conveys the use case: when you need an address's rune transfer history. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate compared to balance or info tools.
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.