Ordiscan: getInscriptionActivity

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning pagination (via the 'page' parameter) and specifying the response includes timestamps and counterparties. This helps the agent understand the scope and limits of the data.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes key details (address-specific, transfer history, timestamps, counterparties, pagination) compactly.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and basic behavior, but given the lack of an output schema, it could be more explicit about the return structure (e.g., fields, pagination metadata). Additionally, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'inscriptionTransferActivity', leaving a gap in contextual completeness for tool selection.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; it only reiterates the pagination concept already implied by the 'page' parameter. No additional meaning or constraints are added.

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: returning inscription transfer history for a specific Bitcoin address, including incoming/outgoing movements, timestamps, and counterparties. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('inscription transfer history'), distinguishing it from siblings like getInscriptionsByAddress which likely returns current inscriptions rather than transfer history.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the similarly named sibling 'inscriptionTransferActivity' or other inscription-related tools. The description lacks explicit context for tool selection, requiring the agent to infer based solely on the purpose.

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