Ordiscan: getRecentStamps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying return fields (asset name, image preview, creator, timestamp) and ordering behavior, which is useful beyond the structured metadata.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and use cases, with zero unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and context.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description covers return fields, ordering, and typical use cases. The schema handles parameter constraints, and annotations confirm safety. Minor gaps like pagination details are not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, including default, maximum, and description. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but the schema already provides complete documentation, so 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?

Description clearly states the tool's verb ('browse') and resource ('recently issued Bitcoin Stamps') with explicit ordering ('newest first'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getStamp, getStampsByAddress, and searchStamps by focusing on recency and discovery.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('activity feeds and what's new surfaces') and frames the tool for discovery, giving clear context for when to use it. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient to differentiate from similar stamp-related functions.

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