Ordiscan: inscriptionTransferActivity

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the exact output (full history with timestamps and addresses). It does not, however, mention potential limitations like pagination or rate limits, which would improve transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence of 18 words with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: verb (Return), scope (full ownership transfer history, single Bitcoin inscription), and output fields. Achieves maximum conciseness.

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 required parameter and no output schema, the description provides all essential information: what it does, what it returns, and the input format. The simplicity of the tool means no additional context is needed for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with the parameter description already explaining the inscriptionId format. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 tool returns the full ownership transfer history for a single Bitcoin inscription, specifying the fields (timestamp, from-address, to-address, transaction hash). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like getInscriptionActivity by focusing specifically on ownership transfers rather than general activity.

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 tracking ownership changes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getInscriptionActivity. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's specific purpose.

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