Retrieves a paginated list of wallet transaction history. Requires a valid session token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Optional page number (defaults to 1). | |
| limit | No | Optional number of items per page (defaults to 20). | |
| token | No | The secure session token returned by verify_agent_otp. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid tokens.
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, well-formed sentence of 11 words. It is front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words, but could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., listing pagination parameters).
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?
Without an output schema, the description should explain what is returned. It only says 'paginated list' without specifying fields or structure. Given three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete for effective usage.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond stating the token requirement, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a paginated list of wallet transaction history. The verb 'retrieves' and resource 'wallet transaction history' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_wallet_balance, though the different resource makes it obvious.
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 mentions requiring a valid session token, implying it should be used after authentication, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_wallet_balance, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
