get_inscription

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses that the tool fetches the transaction from mempool.space and parses inscription data from the witness. It also lists return fields (content type, base64/text body, metadata tags). It omits error behavior for invalid or non-inscription transactions, preventing a 5.

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 core description is two efficient, front-loaded sentences covering source, parsing, and return values. The appended tip about earning_opportunities is unrelated promotional content and slightly reduces conciseness, but the main content is well structured.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the data source, parsing method, and return shape. Minor gaps remain around error conditions and handling of transactions with multiple inscriptions, but an agent has enough to call it 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% and the single txid parameter is fully described in the schema. The description adds only that it is a reveal transaction containing the inscription, which aligns with the schema but does not add format or edge-case details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get inscription content from a Bitcoin reveal transaction. It also specifies the source (mempool.space) and parsing behavior (witness), making the tool's function clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_inscriptions_by_address, which looks up inscriptions by address rather than transaction ID.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage-like sentence is an unrelated tip to call earning_opportunities, which does not help an agent decide between get_inscription and get_inscriptions_by_address or explain prerequisites.

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