Retrieve the most recently created Bitcoin stamps to stay updated on new SRC-20 tokens and collections. Specify the number of stamps to fetch, with a maximum limit of 100.
Retrieve the most recently created Bitcoin stamps
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of recent stamps to retrieve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't cover key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of stamps with details). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.
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 single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Bitcoin stamps' are, what data is returned (e.g., fields like ID, timestamp, content), or behavioral aspects like pagination or errors. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the 'limit' parameter with details on type, range, and default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'recent' ordering, which is already suggested by the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'most recently created Bitcoin stamps', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_recent_sales' or 'search_stamps', which might also retrieve recent stamps with different filters or scopes.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_stamp' for specific stamps or 'search_stamps' for filtered searches. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.