Ordiscan: inscriptionTransferActivity

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't contradict them. However, it adds little behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or edge cases like a missing inscription. The description's mention of 'every move' hints at the response structure but is not a behavioral disclosure beyond the annotation coverage.

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 that immediately states the main purpose and enumerates the returned fields (timestamp, from-address, to-address, transaction hash). No fluff or redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the key action and scope.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and strong annotations, this description is nearly complete: it explains what it returns, the scope (single inscription), and the exact data fields. The only gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling activity tools, but given the low complexity, the overall context is sufficient.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter descriptions, including the format example for inscriptionId. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond reinforcing that it is 'a single Bitcoin inscription', which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('full ownership transfer history for a single Bitcoin inscription'), clearly defining the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getInscriptionActivity by specifying 'full ownership transfer history' and 'single Bitcoin inscription', which clarifies its unique purpose.

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 usage for a single inscription's transfer history, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like getInscriptionActivity or getInscriptionsByAddress. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so the guidance is contextual but not fully explicit.

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