get_inscription

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' plus the enumerated return fields makes the read-only nature and output content reasonably clear, but there is no mention of authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior on a missing/invalid inscription ID.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the core action and scope lead, and the return-value summary follows compactly.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields compensates well for the absent return contract. Only the lack of usage/alternative guidance and any failure-mode behavior leaves a minor gap.

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%, and the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter including its {txid}i{index} or number format. The description only restates 'by its ID or number', adding no syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get detailed metadata for a Bitcoin Ordinals inscription') and scopes it by ID or number. Enumerating the returned fields (owner address, content type, sat rarity, genesis) implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like get_inscription_content, get_inscription_traits, and get_inscription_transfers, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_inscription_traits, get_inscription_content, or search_inscriptions. The reader must infer the distinction from the field list alone.

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