get_transaction_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, pagination details, or whether the history includes all transaction types (e.g., swaps, transfers) or only settled ones. No additional behavioral context is given beyond the action itself.

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, short sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it extremely concise and easy to parse.

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 simple read tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks contextual completeness. It does not explain how this tool relates to sibling tools like get_my_trades or get_escrow_history, nor does it summarize the transaction types covered (swap, transfer) as revealed by the schema. With no output schema, the description could have clarified what the response contains, but it doesn't.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, providing clear explanations for 'page', 'type', 'limit', and 'direction'. The description only adds the generic phrase 'filtering options,' which does not enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('your transaction history'), indicating it retrieves the user's own transaction records. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_escrow_history and get_my_trades, which cover different types of transaction-related data. The phrase 'with filtering options' implies configurable results, but the core purpose is 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, such as using get_escrow_history for escrow transactions or get_my_trades for trade-specific histories. There is no context on typical use cases, prerequisites, or relationships to related tools.

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