Ordiscan: getXCPBalances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact scope of the returned data (XCP, named assets, Bitcoin Stamps, rare pepes) and the inclusion of metadata, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists specific asset types. Every phrase adds information, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has no input schema and no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the return contents and metadata fields. It is clear enough for an agent to know what to expect from the tool and how it differs from related balance tools.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds semantic value by explaining what the returned data includes (asset name, supply, divisibility), which helps the agent understand what the tool's output represents even though there are no inputs to document.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('user's legacy Bitcoin (P2PKH) wallet holdings on the Counterparty layer'), then enumerates the exact asset types returned. It distinguishes this tool from sibling balance tools like getBTCBalances and getRuneBalances by explicitly scoping to Counterparty-layer assets and legacy P2PKH addresses.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when the user needs Counterparty-layer balances for a legacy Bitcoin address. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for Bitcoin-native balances, use getBTCBalances'), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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