Ordiscan: getRunesActivity

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds behavioral context by specifying pagination and the types of data returned (timestamps, amounts, counterparties), which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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-loading the core purpose with specific data details. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 tool has two parameters (one required) and no output schema. The description mentions key output fields but lacks pagination details like page size or termination detection. However, for a straightforward query tool, the description provides sufficient context for basic use.

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 documents both parameters. The description confirms 'given Bitcoin address' and 'paginated' but adds little semantic value beyond what the schema states. 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 tool returns Rune transfer history, including specific data types (etching, mints, sends, receives) with timestamps, amounts, and counterparties. It also mentions pagination, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like getRuneBalances.

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 implies use for querying transfer history of a Bitcoin address but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getRuneBalances or getUtxoRunes. The context signals list many sibling tools, but no differentiation is offered.

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