get_contract_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data source (TronGrid indexed data), aggregation by contract, pagination mechanism (limit + fingerprint), and defaults/max page size. This goes well beyond the annotations and sets clear expectations.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence differentiates from a sibling, and the third covers pagination specifics. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary fluff.

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 list tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, differentiation, and key pagination defaults. It does not describe the output format, but with no output schema and the pagination hint, this is a minor gap. The tool is otherwise well-specified.

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?

The schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that transactions are aggregated by contract, giving context to the address parameter. It also explicitly references limit and fingerprint as pagination controls, reinforcing their roles in 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 the tool fetches transaction history for a smart contract from TronGrid indexed data. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_account_transactions by noting it aggregates transactions BY contract, which differentiates it from the primary sibling tool.

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 names the closest alternative (get_account_transactions) and clarifies the scope difference (by contract vs by account). It also mentions pagination support, implying appropriate use cases. However, it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios or other alternatives like get_events_by_contract_address.

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