runes_page_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states '100 runes per page' but omits critical details like out-of-range page handling, whether response includes total pages or next page indicator, or any side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Two concise sentences front-loaded with the action and purpose. No wasted words; every sentence contributes meaning. Appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. A paginated tool should specify response structure (e.g., array of runes, next page token) and total page count. Without this, the agent cannot fully understand how to use the tool effectively.

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% (no description for 'page' parameter). The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, failing to explain valid ranges (e.g., starting from 1), data type constraints, or the relationship between page number and rune ordering.

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 verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'a specific page of 100 inscribed Bitcoin Runes', and the purpose 'pagination access to the complete list'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'rune_get' (single rune) and 'runes_latest_get' (latest only).

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?

Description says 'Use this for paginated access', implying appropriate usage for iterating through all runes, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for single rune lookup) or alternatives. The sibling list provides context but the description itself lacks exclusions.

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