Ordiscan: getStamp

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining the Bitcoin Stamp protocol and listing the metadata fields returned, including 'if any' for SRC20 association. No contradictions exist.

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 no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the action and result fields; the second provides useful protocol background. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the key return fields, and the underlying protocol context. The schema fully documents the only parameter, making this a well-rounded, self-sufficient description.

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 the stampId parameter fully described as a numeric, sequentially assigned ID. The description's 'by ID' adds no new syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('metadata for a single Bitcoin Stamp') scoped by ID. It enumerates the exact data fields returned (image data, creator address, block height, asset name, SRC20 association), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like getRecentStamps, getStampsByAddress, or searchStamps.

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 clearly states that this tool is for fetching a single stamp by ID, which implies the appropriate use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'by ID' scoping is strong contextual guidance and distinguishes it from listing/search siblings.

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