get_transfers

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes a read operation ('get'), but fails to mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or what happens when no transfers exist. Minimal transparency.

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?

Extremely concise at one sentence, which is efficient for a simple purpose. However, it lacks any structure such as separating parameter hints or usage notes, making it less scannable.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the meaning of boolean filters or the height range, leaving the agent without critical information for correct invocation.

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 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description only loosely maps to 'in' and 'out' booleans via 'incoming and outgoing', but completely ignores 'pending', 'pool', 'min_height', and 'max_height'. Adds almost no value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving transfer history, specifying 'incoming and outgoing' which adds scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_transfer_by_txid' which focuses on a single transaction.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_transfer_by_txid' or 'sweep_all'. The description implies usage for history retrieval but lacks context on exclusions.

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