inscribe

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

Without annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious trait: asynchronous, non-blocking commit broadcast with a typical 10-60 min confirmation window. It also lists the returned fields and tells the agent to persist them. It stops short of stating that this spends BTC / incurs a commit fee and what happens if the commit is never revealed, which matters for a fund-spending transaction.

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 action and step number, then the async caveat, then the follow-up and return values — a logical order with almost no waste. The trailing 'earning_opportunities' tip is a promotional aside that is not needed to call this tool correctly.

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-phase inscription flow with no output schema, the description covers the sequencing, timing, and returned identifiers adequately. It leaves one operational gap: whether the agent must fund revealAddress or otherwise act on revealAmount/feeRate before calling inscribe_reveal.

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%, including the feeRate enum semantics, so the schema does the parameter work. The description adds one useful cross-call constraint — the same contentType and contentBase64 must be passed to inscribe_reveal — but adds no extra meaning about feeRate or content encoding. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a Bitcoin inscription') and immediately scopes it as 'STEP 1: Broadcast commit transaction', which cleanly separates it from inscribe_reveal and inscribe_child. An agent can identify the tool without reading the schema.

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?

Explicitly says the tool broadcasts and returns immediately, does NOT wait for confirmation, and names the follow-up tool (inscribe_reveal) with the required condition (after commit confirms) and the exact inputs to reuse. This is a textbook when-to-use/when-to-chain instruction.

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