get_token_events_for_maker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Get a list of token events' without mentioning pagination, sorting, filtering, or that the operation is read-only. It also doesn't describe the response format or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 a single, focused sentence: 'Get a list of token events for a given wallet address'. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word contributes to the core meaning. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides no information about return values, limit behavior, sorting, or the structure of the token events. Given the complexity, the description is too minimal to be fully complete; it only states the primary purpose without covering necessary usage context.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter context. However, the nested 'query' object and its fields are already well-documented in the schema, so no significant gap exists.

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's function: 'Get a list of token events for a given wallet address'. It uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('token events'), and scopes it to a wallet address. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_token_events' which is more general, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention 'use this when you need events for a specific wallet' or exclude cases where the sibling 'get_token_events' would be more appropriate. The tool name implies the usage, but the description provides 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.