explorer_get_tx_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety expectations. The description adds the ability to filter by block range but does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or any rate limits. Given the annotations, the description meets a baseline but adds limited beyond-annotation value.

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 sentence that front-loads the core function ('Get transaction history for an address') and mentions optional filters. It is concise with no wasted words, achieving high structural efficiency.

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 tool has six parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to cover return format and pagination but does not. The spurious 'method' reference adds confusion. However, the rich schema and annotations (read-only, open-world) make it minimally complete for a filtered list tool, though not contextually rich.

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% (all six parameters have descriptions), which would normally warrant a baseline of 3. However, the description mentions a 'method' filter that does not exist in the schema (only startBlock/endBlock are present). This mismatch could mislead the agent into looking for a non-existent parameter, reducing the score.

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 'Get transaction history for an address' with a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like explorer_get_tx_details (single transaction) and explorer_get_token_transfers (token-specific) by focusing on full transaction history, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for retrieving address transaction history but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives such as explorer_get_tx_details or explorer_get_internal_txs. No exclusions or alternative names are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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