runes_get_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden: it does disclose the shape of the returned events (amounts, addresses, block heights, timestamps), which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about ordering (newest-first?), whether results are capped/truncated beyond the limit parameter, latency, or that the call is read-only.

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 is front-loaded and the return-shape sentence is efficient, but the trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is cross-promotional and does not help an agent select or invoke this tool, weakening an otherwise tight definition.

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 read-only, three-parameter, fully documented tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and why an agent would call it. Only ordering and truncation behavior of the event list remain undisclosed, which is a minor gap given the schema already explains pagination.

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% — rune name/ID formats, limit range (1–60, default 20) and offset pagination are all documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating that a specific rune is required, so 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource — fetching recent on-chain activity (mints, transfers, burns) for a given Bitcoin Rune — which is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the close sibling runes_get_address_activity, but the rune-scoped framing distinguishes it implicitly.

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?

'Useful for monitoring rune distribution and trading activity' implies a use case but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and names no alternative for address-level or holder-level views, which are provided by siblings.

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