Ordiscan: getRareSats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the specific categories of rare sats and the address-level scope, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, error handling, or response format. It is consistent with annotations and adds modest context, but falls short of rich behavioral disclosure.

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, with the action front-loaded. It wastes no words and every sentence contributes meaning: the first states what the tool does, the second states its value. No verbosity or redundancy.

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's low complexity (one parameter, fully described in schema), rich annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is complete for an agent to understand what the tool does, when to use it, and what input is required. It does not need to explain return values since none are structured, and the description implies a list. The tool is a read-only, idempotent lookup, and the description covers the essential 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the single parameter 'bitcoinAddress'. The description reinforces its meaning by linking it to 'rare sats' and 'evaluating sat rarity holdings', but it does not add new syntax, constraints, or formats beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 the action ('List'), the resource ('rare sats'), and the specific scoping ('controlled by a given Bitcoin address'). It also enumerates the rarity categories (uncommon, rare, epic, legendary, named single-satoshi units), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like rareSatsForUTXO and getSatRangesForUTXO, which operate at UTXO level.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful for collectors evaluating sat rarity holdings.' This gives context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., rareSatsForUTXO) or situations where it should not be used. Since it offers a clear context without exclusions, it merits a 4 rather than a 5.

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