decode_inscription

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must reveal behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does, not side effects, error behaviors, rate limits, or return format. For a non-read-only tool (assumed), this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no redundancy. However, the use of slashes and plus signs slightly reduces readability, but overall efficient.

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 exists, so the description should explain the return value. It does not mention what the decoded output looks like or how consistency results are reported. Lacks completeness for a decoding tool.

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% with a description for the only parameter 'raw' specifying format (hex or base64) and context (payload/witness). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in 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?

Description specifies the action (decode and check), the resource (raw inscription content/OP_RETURN), and the specific checks (content-type, content-hash consistency). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_inscription which fetch inscription data rather than decode raw content.

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?

The description implies usage when one has raw inscription payload to decode and validate, but does not explicitly state when to avoid or provide alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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