query_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the Sui GraphQL limitation (only one of affected_address, affected_object, or function may be used), explains the PTB attribution pitfall, and describes how include_functions mitigates it. This is high-value behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 long but structured into a purpose/guidance section and a warning paragraph. Each sentence earns its place, though the attribution warning is dense. It is appropriately detailed for a complex tool with 10 parameters but not perfectly concise.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the most important contextual concerns: filter exclusivity, PTB attribution, and alternative tools. It stops short of describing the return shape or pagination behavior, but the raw transaction intent is clear enough for an agent 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description enhances the meaning of tricky parameters: it explains why function filtering is dangerous for attribution and when to use include_functions. However, most parameter details are left to the schema, so the gain is modest but non-trivial.

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 opens with 'Query raw Sui transactions with specific filters' and enumerates the filter types (sender, affected address/object, function, checkpoint range), making the tool's scope immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_transaction_history by labeling itself 'raw' and explicitly directing human-readable queries to that sibling.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'For human-readable wallet activity, prefer get_transaction_history instead' and warns against using the function filter for per-protocol volume metrics, suggesting query_events as the alternative. It also states the mutual-exclusivity constraint among three filters, which is a crucial usage rule.

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