Inscribe Plain Text

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds 'broadcast' and the return format, which is useful, but it does not disclose irreversibility or the need for wallet funds beyond the feePerByte parameter. This is adequate but not richly contextual.

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 concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the core purpose. It is somewhat repetitive with the schema and contains a factual error, but overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 no output schema, the description usefully specifies the return shape (txid, inscriptionId, viewUrl). However, it omits prerequisites such as wallet initialization and funded UTXOs, and does not elaborate on the destructive nature beyond the annotation. This makes it incomplete but serviceable.

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 the baseline is 3. However, the description contains an incorrect default for feePerByte (states 0.2, schema says 0.15) and merely restates the content parameter without adding meaningful semantics. This inconsistency and lack of added value lower the score.

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 uses a specific verb 'Create and broadcast' and specifies the resource 'plain text inscription', clearly distinguishing it from other content-type tools (html, json, binary) and the split prepare/broadcast tools. The scope 'in one step' further clarifies its combined nature.

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 this tool is a combined alternative to ordnet_inscribe_prepare and ordnet_inscribe_broadcast. It gives clear context for when to use this tool (for plain text, single-step), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like the HTML/JSON variants.

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