get_rune_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the payload contents (symbol, divisibility, supply, premine, mint terms, etching tx), which frames this as a static metadata read, but it says nothing about permissions, errors for unknown names, or caching/rate limits.

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, no filler, and the identity of the tool comes first with the return payload second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, and since no output schema exists, the description usefully enumerates what is returned. What is missing is the routing information an agent needs against the many nearby rune tools.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'name' parameter already documents format and the example with the bullet separator. The description only repeats 'by name', adding no syntax or normalization guidance beyond the schema. 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 details for a Bitcoin Rune by name') and enumerates the returned fields, which separates it from sibling metadata tools like get_rune_market_info or get_rune_holders. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 only usage signal is 'by name', which implies a lookup keyed on rune name. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this over list_runes, get_rune_market_info, or get_rune_unlock_date, and there are no stated preconditions.

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