Retrieve a paginated list of Bitcoin Runes, including name, symbol, supply, divisibility, mint terms, and etching info. Ideal for building Rune-based applications or market analysis.
List Bitcoin Runes with pagination. Returns rune name, symbol, supply, divisibility, mint terms, and etching info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results per page (max 60) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior and the shape of returned data (name, symbol, supply, divisibility, mint terms, etching info), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about ordering, auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the list is exhaustive.
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 no waste; the core purpose is front-loaded and the return-value detail follows efficiently. Slightly more could be said but nothing is padding.
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 usefully enumerates the returned fields so the agent knows what to expect. For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, this is nearly complete, only missing usage guidance relative to siblings.
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 both parameters (limit, offset) are fully documented in the schema, including defaults, min, and max. The description only alludes to pagination without adding syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 ('List Bitcoin Runes') and names the scope (pagination) plus the returned fields. It is distinguishable from sibling per-rune tools like get_rune_info or get_rune_holders, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no naming of alternatives among the many sibling rune tools (get_rune_info, get_rune_holders, get_rune_market_info). The agent must infer that this is the bulk-listing tool rather than a per-rune detail tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.