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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only feed but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, pagination, or the distinction between decoded and raw data beyond the word 'decoded.'

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by usage; no filler. The fragment 'Decoded activity feed for an address' is efficient, though 'decoded' could use a brief qualifier without wasting space.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return format, pagination behavior, default time range for 'since', and what constitutes a 'decoded' activity entry. These are important for an agent to invoke and interpret the feed 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 schema already documents both 'address' and 'since' fully. The description adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource ('Decoded activity feed for an address') and adds a usage context ('reviewing what an agent did on-chain'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling read tools like get_alerts or get_dashboard, which could also surface on-chain activity.

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?

Provides a clear when-to-use condition: reviewing what an agent did on-chain. It does not mention when not to use it or name any alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer that this is the primary feed tool.

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