Resolve a Bitmap district

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core ownership rule, 'a district N is owned by the first valid '<N>.bitmap' inscription', which informs the agent of the deterministic resolution. It does not mention edge cases like unresolved districts or that it is a read-only operation, but the verb 'resolve' suggests a safe lookup.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then the ownership rule. Every sentence adds value with 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?

With no output schema, the description states the return items (inscription id, owner address, sat) and explains how the district is claimed. It lacks details on behavior for unclaimed districts, but for a simple lookup tool with a single parameter, this is sufficient.

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 the parameter fully, describing district as a Bitcoin block height and enforcing a minimum of 0. The description adds a concrete example ('0 for the '0.bitmap' district') and links the parameter to the resolution rule, but no substantial new semantics beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Resolve' and identifies the resource as 'a Bitmap district number (a Bitcoin block height)' and the output as 'claiming inscription id, owner address, and sat'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_sat or get_inscription, which address different resources.

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: when you need to resolve a Bitmap district to its ownership info, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of explicit guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.