get_ordinal_utxos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the indexer dependency (Unisat), rate-limit behavior, and the need for UNISAT_API_KEY. It also warns that these UTXOs should not be spent, which is a critical operational trait not captured by 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 core definition is front-loaded and efficient. There is mild redundancy in restating that ordinal UTXOs carry inscriptions or rune balances, and the closing tip about 'earning_opportunities' is promotional rather than essential to invoking this tool.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually, the data source, rate-limit caveat, and key safety warning. It could go slightly further on return shape or pagination behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('address' and 'confirmedOnly'). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get ordinal UTXOs') and immediately clarifies what makes them ordinal ('contain inscriptions or runes'), which distinguishes them from regular BTC UTXOs and cardinal UTXOs. The warning 'do not spend' further separates their purpose from generic UTXO retrieval.

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?

Provides clear context for when the tool applies (ordinal UTXOs with inscriptions or runes) and gives an important handling constraint ('should not be spent in regular transfers'). It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_btc_utxos or get_cardinal_utxos, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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