explorer_get_address_funded_by

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns the earliest transaction, but it does not explain semantics such as how 'earliest' is defined (by block number or timestamp), what happens if no transactions exist, or whether the full transaction object is returned. With annotations present, the description adds moderate but limited behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and purpose without wasted words. It is concise, directly readable, and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters, good annotations, and a straightforward behavior, the description covers the essential purpose. The only mild gap is that it does not specify the return shape or the exact ordering criterion for 'earliest', but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity and the sibling tool context. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it.

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%: both parameters (chainId and address) have descriptive text in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema, such as formatting examples or constraints. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics comprehensively, a 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 returns the earliest transaction for an address, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('earliest transaction'). It also adds purpose ('useful for identifying initial funding or activity'), and this tool's scoped focus (earliest transaction) distinguishes it from sibling tools like explorer_get_tx_history or explorer_get_tx_details.

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 implies the primary use case: identifying initial funding or activity for an address. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer when to use this over the broader transaction history tool. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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