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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the 20-entry per call limit, potential staleness of data, and semantic limitations around execution prices and transfer semantics. It also explains the cursor-based pagination behavior ('Use the returned next_cursor as start_time to page backward'), which is not visible from annotations alone.

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 well-structured with distinct sections for purpose, usage, limitations, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the core action and every sentence carries useful information; even the alternative references are justified by giving selection criteria.

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 moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, output schema presence, and a read-only annotation, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, its limitations, pagination mechanics, and alternatives, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by linking the start_time parameter to the returned next_cursor and clarifying page_count's maximum, which helps an agent use pagination correctly. This goes slightly beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 ('Get one page of decoded transaction history') with a clear resource ('EVM wallet across DeBank-supported chains') and scope (send, receive, approval categories). It also names sibling alternatives, so an agent can distinguish it from get_transaction and decode_transaction without opening their schemas.

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 includes an explicit 'Use when' section covering wallet activity discovery, protocol interaction history, exchange exposure, and gas analysis责任人. It also provides explicit routing guidance: use get_transaction or decode_transaction when a known transaction needs block-level details, and clarifies the tool is not a complete ledger or PnL engine.

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