get_account_internal_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the data source (TronGrid indexed data), the pagination approach (limit + fingerprint), and the default/max limits. This extra context helps the agent anticipate how the API behaves.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no superfluous wording. Every sentence earns its place: the first clarifies the exact resource, the second provides essential pagination constraints.

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 adequately covers the core purpose and pagination, but with 9 parameters and no output schema, it does not fully explain return value shape, sorting behavior, or how filters (minTimestamp, onlyConfirmed, etc.) interact. For a relatively complex tool, this leaves some gaps that an agent must infer from parameter descriptions.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions pagination via 'limit + fingerprint' and default/max limits, but these details already exist in the schema's parameter descriptions. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('internal transactions for an account'), and further clarifies that these are triggered by smart contract execution. This effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_account_transactions and get_contract_internal_transactions.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to fetch internal transactions from TronGrid indexed data. It also states the pagination mechanism and limits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specialized nature of 'internal transactions' strongly implies the appropriate use case.

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