ordinals_p2p_my_trades

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 that this is a ledger query and requires an unlocked wallet so the BTC address resolves, but it does not cover pagination behavior, failure modes when locked, or return characteristics.

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 description is short and front-loads the core scope in the first sentence. The final tip about `earning_opportunities` is tangential to invoking this tool, but the overall text remains compact.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented schema parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies scope, auth prerequisite, and filtering. It could say more about pagination or expected result shape, but the main invocation requirements are covered.

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%, so the schema already documents `limit`, `offset`, and `status`. The description only repeats that status filtering is optional and adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: list trades involving the active wallet's BTC address, where the wallet is buyer or seller. This clearly scopes it to the caller's wallet, though it does not explicitly name the sibling `ordinals_p2p_list_trades` as the non-wallet-scoped alternative.

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?

It states a prerequisite (unlocked wallet) and mentions optional status filtering, which implies when the tool is usable. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with sibling alternatives such as `ordinals_p2p_list_trades` or `ordinals_p2p_get_trade`, so selection guidance is incomplete.

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