souldinals_list_souls

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load and does reasonably well: it names the upstream data source (Unisat Ordinals API), states the read-only listing behavior, discloses the wallet-address fallback, and enumerates the returned fields. Missing only rate limits or failure behavior.

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 action, then source, then default behavior, then returns. The closing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is promotional rather than definitional, but it is short and routing-relevant.

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 single-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers source, defaulting behavior, and return shape, which is everything needed to call it correctly. Only edge cases and pagination/limits are absent.

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?

The schema already documents the single address parameter at 100% coverage, including the exact same 'omit to use wallet Taproot address' semantics. The description therefore adds no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 plus a meaningful qualifier: soul inscriptions of content type text/markdown owned by a Taproot address. That distinguishes it from the generic get_inscriptions_by_address sibling without naming it, so the differentiation is inferable but not explicit.

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?

Covers one conditional ('if no address is provided, uses the current wallet's Taproot address') which is useful call guidance. However, it never says when to use this instead of get_inscriptions_by_address or get_ordinal_utxos, so sibling selection is left to inference.

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