inscriptions_page_get

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral traits such as page numbering scheme (0- vs 1-indexed), page size, ordering, or rate limits. It also fails to state that the operation is read-only. For a paginated tool, this is insufficient.

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 two concise sentences with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage hint, making it easy 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?

The tool lacks an output schema, and the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., list of inscriptions, pagination metadata). Given the sibling tools and the need for correct pagination, more details are needed about the return format and page size.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'page' parameter. The description merely says 'specific page' without adding details like valid range, default value, or whether indexing starts at 0 or 1. The parameter type is just 'number' with no constraints.

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 it gets a specific page of Bitcoin Ordinals inscriptions, and mentions paginated access to the complete list. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like inscriptions_block_page_get, leaving some ambiguity.

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 says 'Use this for paginated access,' giving a clear intended use case. But it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, so guidance is only partial.

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