Ordiscan: getRunesActivity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, response size limits, or typical usage constraints beyond these annotations.

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 concise sentence, but its brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is appropriately front-loaded but lacks completeness for a 2-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 no output schema and only 2 parameters, the description should explain what activity data is returned. It does not mention response structure, pagination, or field types, leaving the agent guessing about the tool's output.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'address' but does not clarify the bitcoinAddress format or the optional page parameter. No context on valid values or defaults is provided.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'rune activity' for a given address. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getBRC20Activity and getInscriptionActivity by specifying Runes, but lacks detail on what 'activity' entails (e.g., transactions, transfers).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getRuneBalances or getRuneInfo. No context on exclusion criteria or prerequisite steps is given.

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