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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a behavioral constraint ('max 5,000 blocks') and clarifies that wallet results include 'in and out' transfers, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or how pagination works. It adds some value but falls short of comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core functionality and constraints are front-loaded, followed by a concise usage note.

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 tool has five parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the main action, block limit, and usage, but leaves gaps for the 'chain' and 'limit' parameters and lacks behavioral details like read-only nature or rate limits. It is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'token' and 'wallet' parameters and the 'blocks' parameter with its maximum, but it does not mention the 'chain' or 'limit' parameters at all, leaving two of five parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Recent ERC-20 Transfer events' for a token, wallet, or both. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like erc20_balance or erc20_allowance by focusing on transfer events, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'Use to confirm incoming payments or watch whale moves.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but does not specify when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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