Get Stamp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining conditional fields (market_data and lowestPriceDispenser only when the indexer has them) and the base64 payload behavior unless include_image_base64=True is set. It does not cover error or permission behavior, but the read-only nature is evident from 'get'.

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 a dense, single-sentence list that front-loads the key identifier semantics before enumerating return fields. No filler words are present, though the long enumeration makes it slightly harder to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter fetch with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains how to identify the stamp, what fields are returned, which fields are conditional, and the only important boolean flag. It could add explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus search_stamps, but nothing critical is missing.

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 only defines stamp_id as a string and include_image_base64 as a boolean, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining that stamp_id can be a stamp number, tx hash, or CPID, and by clarifying that the base64 image payload is dropped unless include_image_base64=True.

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's function: retrieve one stamp by number, tx hash, or CPID. It names the specific resource and the exact identifier forms, which distinguishes it from list/search sibling tools like list_stamps and search_stamps.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a known stamp number, tx hash, or CPID and want a single stamp's full details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'one stamp by exact identifier' framing is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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