get_token_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states a simple fetch operation. It does not disclose important behaviors like filter support, pagination via cursor, sorting with direction, or that a token address will resolve to the top pair. This under-disclosure leaves the agent unaware of key behavioral nuances.

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 extremely short, which might seem concise, but it is under-specification rather than effective brevity. It misses the opportunity to front-load key details such as filtering options or pagination, making it insufficiently informative for a complex tool.

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?

This tool has a complex nested query schema, no output schema, and no annotations. The one-line description is far too thin to provide a complete picture of the tool's capabilities, filters, or return behavior. It is inadequate for proper selection and invocation.

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 adds no parameter-level detail on top of the schema, but it does not need to since the schema is self-explanatory. The description's mention of 'a token pair' aligns with the 'address' parameter but provides no extra value.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a resource ('transactions for a token pair'), but it is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_token_events_for_maker. The term 'transactions' also slightly conflicts with the tool name's 'events', adding ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_token_events_for_maker or get_detailed_pair_stats. The description implies usage through 'for a token pair' but gives no explicit context or exclusions.

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