get_transaction_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves recent transactions with specific fields, but lacks critical details: whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), rate limits, error conditions, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid addresses. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by details about displayed fields and parameter explanations. The Args section is clearly formatted. While efficient, the German language might add minor cognitive load for English-only agents.

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 2 parameters with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks information about return format, error handling, performance characteristics, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a financial data tool, more context about data freshness or source would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'wallet_address' format (Base58) and 'limit' details (default 10, maximum 50). This adds meaningful semantics beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't cover edge cases or validation rules.

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 purpose: retrieving recent transactions for a Solana wallet with specific details (type, description, timestamp). It uses a specific verb ('abrufen' - retrieve) and identifies the resource (Solana wallet transactions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_wallet_balance' beyond the transaction focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_wallet_balance' for balance checks or 'check_token_safety' for token analysis, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts beyond the basic function.

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