Ordiscan: getBitcoinCollections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that results are paginated and that returns include slug, name, supply, and identifiers. It explains the tool's scope ('all indexed') and its role in discovery, which goes beyond bare annotation flags. A slight gap is no mention of rate limits or paging details, but that is minor for a read-only list endpoint.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return fields and usage guidance. Every clause adds value with no redundancy or fluff. It's efficiently structured and immediately understandable.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description fully explains what it returns and how to use it. It mentions pagination, return fields, and the use case. An output schema is absent, but the description compensates by listing the returned fields. There are no other behavioral aspects that need disclosure in this 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?

The single parameter 'page' is fully described in the input schema (1-indexed, omit for first page), so schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the 'paginated' nature but doesn't add new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 function: 'Browse all indexed Bitcoin Ordinals inscription collections (paginated).' It specifies the resource (Bitcoin Ordinals inscription collections) and the action (browse/returns), and differentiates it from siblings by mentioning pagination and pointing to getCollectionInfo/getCollectionMarketInfo for more specific lookups.

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 explicitly says the tool is 'useful for discovery before drilling into floor price or assets via getCollectionInfo / getCollectionMarketInfo,' naming concrete alternatives and indicating when to use this tool versus those. This provides clear context for selection.

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