Get Inscription Details

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a partial return structure (inscriptionId, contentType, contentSize, owner, ...), which gives some behavioral insight beyond annotations. However, it does not specify error handling, availability of historical data, or other edge-case behavior, so it only partially augments the annotation-provided context.

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?

The description is extremely concise, with no filler words. It is structured into Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. Every sentence provides useful information and nothing is redundant or unnecessary.

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 simple read-only tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable outline of the return payload. It lists key fields and uses '...' to indicate additional fields. It lacks explicit mention of error handling (e.g., non-existent inscription), but the overall context is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%: the input schema already contains the format and pattern for inscriptionId. The description repeats the format 'txid_outputIndex' but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, the description provides no additional parameter semantics, and the baseline for high schema coverage 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get detailed information about a specific inscription.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('inscription'), and the qualifier 'specific' distinguishes it from sibling search tools like ordnet_search_inscriptions. The return field list further clarifies its purpose.

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 description makes it clear this tool is for retrieving details of a single inscription when you already have an inscription ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'specific inscription' implies a different use case from searching or retrieving content URLs. This is clear context without exclusions.

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