Wallet 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 usefully states that value is included 'when available' and that results are 'enhanced with market data by default.' However, it does not mention pagination behavior, address validity requirements, or any operational limits.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The sort options are packed into a parenthetical that is efficient, though the trailing '...' introduces some ambiguity about supported values.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Still, the description omits usage alternatives and leaves most parameter semantics undocumented. It is adequate for a simple address-scoped lookup but not 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 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It partially documents sort_by with a list of allowed values, but it leaves page, limit, and address format unexplained. Only one of four parameters receives meaningful new meaning.

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 resource: stamps held by a Bitcoin address, including per-stamp balance and optional value. It distinguishes itself from siblings like wallet_balance and stamp_holders by the address-scoped, per-stamp view with market data, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wallet_balance, stamp_holders, or list_stamps. The context is implied by the address scope, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or routing hints.

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