explorer_get_token_transfers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, aligning with the read-only nature of the tool. The description adds the optional token contract filtering behavior but does not disclose pagination or block range constraints, which are left to the schema. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence, no waste, front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and the key optional filter, and annotations cover the read-only safety. However, with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description could briefly mention that results are paginated and can be constrained by block range, though the schema covers these details.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reiterating the tokenContract filter; it does not explain how startBlock/endBlock or page/pageSize interact.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ERC-20 token transfer history for an address'), and notes the optional token contract filter. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like explorer_get_nft_transfers or explorer_get_tx_history.

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 use case (retrieving ERC-20 transfers for an address) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced.

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