Get a Rune

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Look up' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose error behavior, not-found handling, or permission requirements. For a simple lookup, this level of transparency is minimal but acceptable; it neither misleads nor enriches.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the action ('Look up a Rune by name') and efficiently lists the return data. No redundant words, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: the input format flexibility and the specific output fields. It doesn't address error scenarios, but for a simple read tool with strong schema coverage, this is sufficiently complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the 'name' parameter, including an explicit explanation and examples. The description merely reiterates the 'with or without bullet separators' detail, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Look up a Rune by name' and lists specific return data (supply, divisibility, holder count, mint status, market data). This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bitmap, get_inscription, and get_block.

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 context is clear: this tool is for looking up Rune by name, as opposed to other sibling lookups for sats, bitmaps, inscriptions, fees, or blocks. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the resource-specific wording and sibling names make the appropriate use case evident.

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