midl_get_runes

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the fact that it returns all runes for an address, but does not disclose further behavioral details such as pagination, rate limits, or potential large data sizes. With annotations covering safety, the description provides minimal additional transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action and immediately provides the key usage detail. Every sentence earns its place; no unnecessary 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?

Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety), the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what the tool does and how to use it. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of rune objects) or mention any potential limitations, which would make it fully complete.

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%, and the description restates the same information about the 'address' parameter: it is optional and defaults to the connected wallet ordinals address. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what the schema already offers, so baseline score 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 action ('Get all Runes held by a Bitcoin address') and the resource ('Runes'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'midl_get_rune_balance' (balance of a specific rune) and 'midl_transfer_rune' (transfer operation).

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 provides a clear usage guideline: if no address is provided, it defaults to the connected wallet ordinals address. This helps the agent understand how to use the tool without needing to specify an address. It could be improved by explicitly contrasting with sibling tools, but the guidance is clear.

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