Dispensers By Address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a listing/read-style query and clarifies the status filter, but it does not mention pagination behavior or explicitly state the read-only nature. The behavior implied is consistent with the tool's purpose.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core behavior and optional filter, and the second adds a practical use case. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The output schema covers return shape, and the description covers the main selection logic and filter values. Pagination parameters are simple and have defaults, so the tool can be called correctly. Minor omissions like invalid-address handling or limit bounds are not critical for this low-complexity query.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for 'address' (the entity being queried) and 'status' (open/closed filtering), but it does not explain 'page' or 'limit', leaving pagination semantics to be inferred from their names and defaults.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns all dispensers a Bitcoin address has opened, with optional status filtering. It is clear about the address scope and thereby distinguishable from generic siblings like stamp_dispensers, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives a concrete use case ('see what a seller currently lists'), which implies when this tool is helpful. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or state any exclusions.

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