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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry full disclosure. It does not mention ordering, pagination, time range, or other behavioral details of 'recent transactions'. The description is minimal and offers little beyond the core purpose.

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, short sentence that is easy to read but under-specified. It is concise but sacrifices informative content, making it less useful than a slightly longer description that explains parameters or behavior.

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 is the only source of context. It fails to describe return values, parameter semantics, or any operational caveats, making it incomplete for even a simple two-parameter tool.

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%, and the description provides no elaboration on the 'address' or 'limit' parameters. It only says 'a TON address' which implicitly relates to the address parameter, but no meaning is added for limit or address format.

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 identifies the resource (transactions for a TON address) and the general action (retrieving recent ones). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like ton_defi_yields or ton_dex_volume by focusing specifically on transactions, though it lacks a strong imperative verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ton_wallet_info or ton_overview. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer context.

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