get_inscriptions_by_address

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses the return contents (inscription IDs, content types, metadata), the Unisat indexer dependency, and free-tier rate limits with the UNISAT_API_KEY mitigation. It does not discuss pagination, failure modes, or what happens when the default wallet address is used, but the rate-limit and dependency context is valuable beyond the schema.

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 purpose and return behavior are front-loaded and efficient, but the final 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' sentence is tangential and does not help an agent select or invoke this tool. Removing that promotional line would make the definition tighter.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the main operational caveat (Unisat rate limits). It could say more about pagination or result limits for addresses with many inscriptions, but the core invocation context is present.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that the address defaults to the wallet's Bitcoin address. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get all inscriptions owned by a Bitcoin address.' This clearly separates it from a single-inscription lookup like get_inscription and from generic NFT tools like get_nft_holdings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 states the purpose but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over related ones such as get_inscription, get_nft_holdings, or get_ordinal_utxos. The 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is a promotional aside, not usage guidance for this tool.

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