Get wallet history

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a critical auth requirement (opt-in finance scope), pagination behavior for transactions, ordering (newest first), and the window-based nature of other kinds. This adds substantial context not available 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 two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then expanding with kind-specific details. Every clause adds information, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what each kind returns (transactions list, balance chart points, credit chart points, sources breakdown), covers pagination and windows, and mentions the required scope. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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% and parameter descriptions already explain each field. The description adds meaningful semantics by elaborating on each kind's return content and clarifying that the 'limit' parameter has different interpretations depending on kind. This goes beyond the schema but the baseline is already high.

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 it is read-only money history for the account, and enumerates the four kinds (transactions, balance, credit, sources) with explicit meanings. This distinguishes it from related siblings like get_wallet_status and get_token_price by focusing on historical data rather than current state.

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 clear context on what the tool does and the different data kinds, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is well-defined and the auth requirement is mentioned, giving the agent enough to select it appropriately.

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