get_rune_utxos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the indexer behind the data and the fallback to the active wallet's Taproot address, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, whether unconfirmed/spent outputs are included, or failure modes when the rune ID or address is invalid.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation in the first sentence, followed by the rune ID format and default-address rule. The paragraph break is well used, but the trailing 'earning_opportunities' tip is cross-sell noise that doesn't help an agent call 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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what, the identifier format, and the address default. It stops short of describing the returned UTXO record shape, which matters since no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and both schema fields already document the 'block:tx' rune ID format and the Taproot fallback. The description restates both points rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 — 'List UTXOs containing a specific rune' — plus the data source (Unisat indexer) and address scope. It distinguishes itself implicitly from balance-oriented siblings like get_rune_balances and runes_get_address_balances by asking for UTXOs, though it never names them 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?

Usage is implied (call this when you need rune-bearing UTXOs, e.g. before transferring), and the default-address rule is stated. But there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of what makes this preferable to get_btc_utxos or get_rune_balances, and the closing 'Tip' points to an unrelated earning tool rather than clarifying selection.

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