sat_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns rarity, block of creation, and inscription status, which implies a read operation. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or error conditions, but for a simple retrieval, this is adequate.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every sentence provides necessary context. This is an ideal length for a simple tool.

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 simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and what information it returns. It lacks details on error handling or response structure, but for a retrieval tool, it is largely 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?

The schema has one parameter 'number' with no description (0% coverage). The description clarifies it is the 'absolute number (index)' of the satoshi, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify the expected range or format, so it partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool retrieves information about a specific satoshi using its absolute number. It specifies the action (get), resource (satoshi), and identifier (index), and lists the type of details returned (rarity, block, inscription status). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on addresses, blocks, or transactions.

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 advises using the tool to retrieve satoshi details but does not specify when to avoid it or mention alternative tools. While there are no direct siblings for satoshi queries, the lack of explicit usage exclusion or alternative guidance keeps it from a higher score.

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