Ordiscan: getLatestInscriptions

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent), the description adds that the tool operates network-wide and defaults to newest-first ordering. It also clarifies that address-specific queries are out of scope, providing useful behavioral context.

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 core purpose and immediately followed by usage guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 three-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and usage boundaries. It does not describe return values (no output schema), but that is reasonably implied and not a critical gap for this tool.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small semantic detail that the newest-first sort is the default, but it doesn't meaningfully elaborate on the after/before cursors.

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: browsing the most recently created Bitcoin Ordinals inscriptions network-wide, with default newest-first ordering. It also explicitly differentiates from address-specific lookups, distinguishing it from sibling tools like getInscriptionsByAddress.

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?

It explicitly states when to use ('to discover newly-minted inscriptions') and when not to ('NOT to look up inscriptions on a specific address'). However, it does not name specific alternative tools, relying on the sibling list for that.

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