get_transaction_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by describing the output as 'decoded' and 'human-readable,' implying a read-only, user-friendly feed. But it does not mention any potential limitations, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating recommendation, defining functionality with concrete examples, and providing usage guidance. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 full schema coverage for parameters and a clear, detailed description of purpose and output, the description is nearly complete. It could mention pagination or network behaviors explicitly, but those are already covered by the schema, so it does not need to.

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%, meaning all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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's function: to get decoded transaction history for a Sui wallet, with specific output details like protocol names and token flow. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling query_transactions by explicitly recommending it for exploring wallet 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 explicit usage context with 'Recommended for wallet activity' and directly names an alternative: 'Prefer this over query_transactions when exploring what a wallet has been doing.' However, it lacks a clear 'when not to use' statement, so it doesn't fully cover both sides.

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