get_contract_internal_transactions

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the data source ('TronGrid indexed data') and pagination characteristics ('Supports pagination via limit + fingerprint. Default 20, max 200'). It does not cover rate limits or index lag, but the added context is sufficient given the annotation coverage.

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 purpose, and includes only essential operational details. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core function and pagination but not the response structure or return format. However, the tool name and description make the response type obvious (internal transactions), and the schema covers parameter details. It is mostly complete for a read-only list tool with rich annotations.

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 default 20 and max 200, but this duplicates the existing limit parameter description. No additional parameter meaning is provided 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 states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('internal transactions for a contract address'), and clarifies the nature of internal transactions as 'triggered by smart contract execution.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contract_transactions (regular transactions) and get_events_by_contract_address (events).

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: use this tool to fetch internal transactions for a contract address. It implicitly differentiates from regular transaction tools by specifying 'internal' and the execution trigger, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like get_contract_transactions are not referenced, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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