get_inscription

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

With no annotations, the description discloses a behavioral trait: free for basic metadata but may later be paid. However, it does not state read-only nature, authentication requirements, or error handling, leaving gaps.

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 concise: one sentence that directly conveys the purpose and key behavioral note. No superfluous words.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input and behavioral note. It lacks return value details and examples, which would improve completeness.

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 clear description for the single parameter 'id'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond payment context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool fetches a Doginals/Dogenals inscription by ID or content hash. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'inscription' are specific, and the distinction from sibling tools (e.g., list_protocols, decode_inscription) is implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to sibling tools like decode_inscription.

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