Ordiscan: rareSatsForUTXO

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., what constitutes 'rare sats', rate limits, or response structure), so it provides minimal value beyond the 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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the key purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, comprehensive annotations), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks explanation of what 'rare sats' means and does not describe the return format, which could be helpful given the specialized domain.

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 a description for 'utxoId'. The description does not add extra meaning such as expected format (e.g., 'txid:vout'), examples, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score for high schema coverage is 3.

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'), the resource ('rare sats'), and the scope ('for a given UTXO'). This differentiates it from siblings like 'getRareSats' (which might not require a UTXO) and 'getSatRangesForUTXO' (which focuses on sat ranges rather than rare sats).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getRareSats' or 'getSatRangesForUTXO'. The description lacks context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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