Prepare Inscription

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

With all annotations set to false, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It transparently states the transaction is signed but not broadcast, and specifies the return fields and the prerequisite that the wallet must be initialized. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful behavioral detail, though it does not go into potential side effects like UTXO selection.

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 well-structured: a clear opening sentence, followed by behavior and return info, then Args/Returns/Requires sections. However, the Args section largely duplicates the schema and contains the incorrect fee default, so it is not perfectly concise. It remains appropriately sized and 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?

The tool is moderately complex and has no output schema, but the description covers the return structure (rawHex, txid, feeEstimate, inscriptionId) and the prerequisite (wallet initialization). It also makes clear the transaction is not broadcast. This is a complete enough description for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect, though it could mention that broadcasting is done separately.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some useful context (content examples, MIME type default), but it incorrectly states the default for feePerByte as 0.2 while the schema specifies 0.15. This contradiction actively misleads the agent, so the score is lowered to 2.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare an inscription transaction without broadcasting.' It differentiates from sibling tools like ordnet_inscribe_broadcast by explicitly noting it does not broadcast, and provides a concrete outcome (signed transaction, raw hex, fee breakdown). This is a strong, unambiguous 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 provides clear usage context: 'for review before broadcasting' and 'without broadcasting,' implying a pre-broadcast step. It does not explicitly name alternatives like ordnet_inscribe_broadcast, but the exclusion of broadcasting is explicit. Since it lacks explicit alternative references, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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