get_address_history

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses data source behavior (Satoshi API with mempool.space fallback), ordering (newest-first), and output content (block height, timestamp, net value change). Lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid address format) or rate limiting.

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?

Efficiently structured with purpose first, implementation details second, output format third, and parameter specifications last. No redundant text; every sentence adds value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Adequate for a read-only query tool with output schema (mentioned in context signals). Covers purpose, pagination behavior, data sources, and return value structure. Minor gap regarding operational constraints (rate limits, auth requirements) or error scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section provides critical compensatory value: explains address accepts 'any format', offset is for pagination with default 0, and limit has default 25 with max 100 constraint. Fully documents all 3 parameters beyond the raw schema types.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' + resource 'paginated transaction history' + scope 'for a Bitcoin address'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_address_balance (current balance) and get_address_utxos (unspent outputs) by specifying 'transaction history' and output details (block height, timestamp, net value change).

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?

Implies usage through 'paginated' and offset/limit parameter descriptions, indicating it's for retrieving historical transaction lists rather than current state. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like 'Use this instead of get_address_balance when you need full transaction history rather than just the balance.'

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