Ordiscan: getBRC20Activity

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds value by specifying the tool returns paginated results with timestamps and amounts, and enumerates activity types. No contradictions 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?

The description is concise, with two sentences that front-load the main purpose and structure. No redundant or unnecessary words; every sentence adds 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?

Given the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it mentions pagination and the fields in the return (timestamps, amounts, activity types). Could be slightly improved by noting the response structure (e.g., array of objects), but is sufficient for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., page parameter already states '1-indexed page number for activity pagination'). Baseline score 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 clearly states it returns BRC-20 token transfer history for a given Bitcoin address, listing specific activity types (deploys, mints, transfers, sends, receives) and mentions pagination. This distinguishes it from siblings like getBRC20TokenInfo which focuses on token 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 implies usage for retrieving BRC-20 activity for an address, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getBRC20TokenInfo or getInscriptionActivity. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria are given.

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