get_address_inscriptions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return payload (inscription IDs, numbers, content types, sat rarity) which is useful, but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, explain pagination behavior, or note any rate limits or permission requirements. For a read tool without annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and resource before detailing the return fields. Efficient and clear.

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?

Covers the core purpose and return fields adequately for a simple retrieval tool with no output schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits pagination behavior, read-only nature, and any usage caveats that would help an agent invoke it with full confidence.

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%, with the address and pagination parameters (limit, offset) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (Ordinals inscriptions owned by a Bitcoin address) and explicitly names the return fields. Distinguishable from sibling tools like get_address_rare_sats and get_tx_inscriptions by the address-scoped inscription listing.

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?

Usage is implied by the address-scoped nature of the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any reference to alternatives such as search_inscriptions or get_inscription_transfers. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the description alone.

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