get_tx_inscriptions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully declares what is returned (inscription IDs, numbers, content types), but is silent on read-only assurance, ordering of results, empty-result behavior for a transaction with no inscriptions, and behavior on an unknown txid.

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, zero filler, with the action and scope front-loaded before the return summary. 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value summary (IDs, numbers, content types). For a simple one-required-parameter read this is nearly sufficient, with only minor gaps around ordering and empty results.

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 txid parameter is documented as 'Bitcoin transaction ID', so the schema does the work. The description adds no format, network, or length guidance beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource and scope ('all Ordinals inscriptions contained in a Bitcoin transaction'), which reads clearly as a transaction-scoped bulk fetch. It implicitly distinguishes itself from single-inscription siblings like get_inscription and address-scoped ones like get_address_inscriptions, though it never names an alternative.

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 framing ('contained in a Bitcoin transaction') implies the use case when you have a txid and want its inscriptions, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to get_inscription / get_address_inscriptions. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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