runes_get_address_activity

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight; it does disclose the return payload categories (mints received, transfers sent/received, burns across all runes), which is useful. However it says nothing about read-only safety, rate limits, permission needs, or result ordering, leaving gaps for an unannotated tool.

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-loads the core action and return contents in two compact sentences, then adds the address-format note efficiently. The final 'Tip' sentence is promotional rather than operational and slightly dilutes the focus.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, but the description compensates by naming the returned data categories and accepted address formats. Pagination and ordering behavior are left to the schema; overall enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds genuine value by spelling out accepted address formats (P2WPKH bc1q, P2TR bc1p, legacy 1...), which the schema's one-line address description does not. Pagination params are left to the schema, which is fine.

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 Bitcoin Rune transaction activity') plus scope ('for a specific Bitcoin address') and enumerates the content returned (mints, transfers, burns). This cleanly separates it from siblings like runes_get_activity (global), runes_get_address_balances (balances, not activity), and runes_get_holders.

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 only implied by the scope phrase 'for a specific address'; it never says when to prefer this over runes_get_activity or runes_get_address_balances. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is a cross-sell, not guidance about alternatives to this tool.

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