get_account_transactions

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral context: pagination via limit+fingerprint, default of 20 results, max of 200, and the fact that it covers all transaction types. This goes beyond the annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of how the tool behaves without contradicting any structured metadata.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place. It covers purpose, data source, scope, and pagination without any fluff or redundancy. Exceptional conciseness.

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 read-only tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns (all transaction types), data source, pagination behavior, and defaults. The parameter details are handled by the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It is slightly light on response structure, but given the tool's simplicity and annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the parameters are well-documented individually. The description adds integrated semantic value by explaining the pagination relationship between limit and fingerprint and stating defaults/max, which is not obvious from the schema alone. This pushes it above the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get transaction history for an account from TronGrid indexed data.' It further clarifies scope by stating 'Returns all transaction types (TRX transfers, contract calls, etc.)', which distinguishes it from specialized siblings like get_account_trc20_transactions or get_transaction. This is a textbook clear purpose.

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 by specifying it returns all transaction types and is sourced from TronGrid indexed data, which implies it is the general-purpose history tool among siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., 'for TRC20-only, use get_account_trc20_transactions'), so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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