ordinals_inscription_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get information') and hints at return content, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, safe, or what happens on invalid IDs. This is acceptable for a simple get tool, but lacks explicit safety assurances.

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 sentences long, with no redundant information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds what metadata can be retrieved. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded.

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 single required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the input (inscription ID) and output (metadata, content type, ownership). It could be improved by noting that the tool is specifically for Bitcoin Ordinals and by clarifying the difference from other inscription-related siblings, but it covers essential details.

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 only one parameter (inscription_id) with no description in the schema. The tool description provides the meaning of this parameter ('by its ID'), which adds value beyond the bare schema. However, it could specify the expected format or example of the ID.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets information about a specific Bitcoin Ordinals inscription by its ID, and distinguishes it from other inscription tools that list or retrieve children. It specifies the resource (inscription) and the action (get), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 to use this tool to retrieve metadata about a single inscription, implying it is appropriate for that specific use case. However, it does not explicitly compare it to sibling tools like inscription_child_get or inscriptions_page_get, which would help an agent decide when not to use it.

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