Broadcast Inscription

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

Annotations already convey destructiveness, but the description adds critical context: 'IRREVERSIBLE' and 'permanently recorded on the blockchain,' explaining the consequence beyond a simple destructive hint. This adds meaningful behavioral insight.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a warning, args, and returns. Every element serves a purpose with no redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simple nature of a broadcast tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, irreversibility, parameter source, and return value shape. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit return field list.

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%, but the description adds value by specifying the rawHex source: 'Raw transaction hex from ordnet_inscribe_prepare.' This clarifies provenance and prerequisite, enhancing the schema's basic description.

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: 'Broadcast a prepared inscription transaction to the BSV network.' This uses a specific verb ('broadcast') and resource ('prepared inscription transaction'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ordnet_inscribe_prepare.

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?

It implies the usage context by specifying 'prepared' and referencing ordnet_inscribe_prepare for the rawHex, indicating this should be used after preparation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though few alternatives exist for broadcasting.

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