Retrieve BRC-20 token activity including deploy, mint, and transfer events, filtered by ticker, Bitcoin address, or operation type.
Get BRC-20 token activity (deploy, mint, transfer events). Filter by ticker, address, or operation type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results per page | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| ticker | No | Filter by BRC-20 ticker | |
| address | No | Filter by Bitcoin address | |
| operation | No | Filter by operation type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it implies read-only via 'Get' and lists the event types included, but omits pagination behavior, sorting, auth/rate-limit info, and output shape. The parenthetical even omits 'transfer_send', which the schema enum includes, so the event coverage statement is slightly incomplete.
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, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Every phrase contributes: the verb, resource, event scope, and filter dimensions.
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?
The tool is a straightforward read query, and the schema fully documents all five parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not explain return structure or pagination behavior, leaving a gap for an agent that needs to understand the response.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Filter by ticker, address, or operation type' merely restates three filter parameters already documented in the schema and adds no format, syntax, or default details.
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'), resource ('BRC-20 token activity'), and event scope ('deploy, mint, transfer events'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_brc20_token, get_brc20_holders, and get_brc20_balances. No sibling is named, but the resource label is distinct enough for an agent to identify the right tool.
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?
Tells the agent how to filter (ticker, address, operation type) but not when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_brc20_token or get_rune_activity. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.