Ordiscan: getTopRunesByMarketCap

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that it returns price, market cap, 24h volume, and price change, which gives additional behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions with 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 extremely concise with three short sentences, each providing essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and returns details, earning 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 (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, usage, and return fields. Minor gaps: it does not explicitly state the ranking order (descending by market cap) or the currency assumed, but these are inferable. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents the two parameters (limit and minMarketCap) sufficiently. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the action 'Get Bitcoin runes ranked by market cap', specifying both the resource and the ordering, which effectively distinguishes it from siblings like getTopRunesByVolume and getTopBRC20ByMarketCap.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use this tool to find the most valuable runes by market capitalization, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the sibling names imply the differentiation.

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