Inscribe JSON Content

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

Annotations already indicate this is destructive (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds behavioral context by specifying 'broadcast' (confirming irreversible on-chain action) and detailing the return structure { txid, inscriptionId, viewUrl }. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the annotation flags.

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 front-loaded with the action, followed by a simple argument list and return format. It wastes no words, though the argument list largely repeats schema content, which slightly reduces its added value.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the described return format is helpful. It also mentions 'one step' to differentiate from prepare/broadcast siblings. However, it omits practical context such as wallet requirements, fee behavior, or content type constraints (e.g., must be valid JSON). The fee default discrepancy also leaves the tool description incomplete relative to the schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does add the JSON qualifier for content, but it introduces a critical error: the described default for feePerByte is 0.2, while the schema clearly states default: 0.15. This contradiction can mislead the agent into using an incorrect fee, undermining the parameter semantics despite the schema's completeness.

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 action: 'Create and broadcast a JSON inscription in one step.' This specific verb+resource formulation distinguishes it from sibling tools like ordnet_inscribe_prepare and ordnet_inscribe_broadcast, which split the process into separate steps.

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 phrase 'in one step' implies use when a combined create-and-broadcast operation is desired, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide concrete when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. With many sibling inscription tools (html, text, binary), the description could be clearer on when JSON is the appropriate content type.

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