get_account_trc20_transactions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, establishing it as a safe read operation. The description adds context beyond the annotations by specifying TronGrid indexed data, the inclusion of token info and human-readable values, and pagination behavior with default/max limits. This adds meaningful behavioral context without redundancy.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause earns its place: the first sentence states the main function and data source, the second describes return content and pagination. No fluff or repetition.

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 straightforward read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It explains return data composition, pagination parameters, and default/max limits. It does not delve into each filter (minTimestamp, onlyConfirmed, etc.), but those are already well-documented in the schema. The absence of an output schema is fine because the description summarizes the return content.

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% with all 10 parameters documented. The description does not significantly expand on parameter meanings, but it does clarify the pagination mechanism (limit + fingerprint) and mentions human-readable values not present in the schema. This adds marginal value, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'TRC20 token transfer history for an account', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_account_transactions (which likely covers TRX transfers) and get_account_trc20_balances (balances, not history). The additional context 'from TronGrid indexed data' further narrows the 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling list. While the purpose is clear, the tool lacks 'use this when X' direction.

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