get-wallet-transactions

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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions a prerequisite sync action, which adds some context, but fails to describe other important traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., pagination details). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and a key usage note. There's no unnecessary verbosity, and each sentence serves a clear purpose. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating the usage note more seamlessly, but it's still efficient.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and a prerequisite, but lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, and differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be helpful, but it meets a minimum viable level for a read-focused tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 9 parameters. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or clarification beyond what the schema already states about parameters like 'address' or 'connectionId.' According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param info in the description, which applies here.

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 purpose: 'Get transaction data for a specific wallet.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction data for a specific wallet'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-exchange-transactions' or 'get-portfolio-transactions,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 some usage guidance by stating 'Ensure transactions are synced by calling PATCH /transactions first,' which implies a prerequisite action. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-exchange-transactions' or 'get-portfolio-transactions,' nor does it clarify exclusions or other contextual factors. This leaves the guidance incomplete but better than none.

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