List Stamps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that results are paginated, ordered newest-first by default, sortable in both directions, and that market filters only apply to stamps with market data. It also explains key value semantics like floor price in BTC from open dispensers and the row-level ident field for protocol filtering. This is strong context, though it omits details like rate limits or explicit read-only behavior.

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?

Three compact sentences deliver pagination, sorting, filter semantics, and row-level protocol identification without fluff. Key behavioral details are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. No redundancy or vague filler.

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 read-only listing with 8 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics: pagination, sorting, filter meaning, and row identifiers. The output schema handles return shape, so that omission is acceptable. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance about when to use this list endpoint versus search_stamps or other sibling endpoints.

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 meaning beyond parameter names by explaining sort direction semantics, floor-price sourcing, market filter concepts, and the data_quality_score range. It does not explicitly map every min/max parameter, and page/limit are only generically covered by 'paginated', but the overall compensation is solid.

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 identifies the tool as a paginated listing of stamps with sorting and optional market filters. It distinguishes itself from more specific siblings like get_stamp and search_stamps by describing listing behavior rather than single-item lookup or search. However, it does not explicitly say 'all stamps' or name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of maximum clarity.

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: use this to page through stamps, sort them, and apply market-data filters. It gives clear sorting and filter context but does not state when to choose this over search_stamps or other listing endpoints, nor any exclusions. Guidance is present but indirect.

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