evm_address_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key precondition ('requires synced address'), cursor-based pagination behavior ('use nextStartingAfter from response as startingAfter'), and credit costs per action/blockchain. It does not detail auth or error behavior, but the query-only nature is strongly implied by 'Query' and the list/get actions.

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 long but well-structured with bullet lists for actions, networks, and credits. Every section earns its place, though the credit matrix is extensive and could be seen as slightly verbose for initial tool selection.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, 6 actions, multiple networks) and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: supported actions, blockchain/network compatibility, pagination, and cost. It does not describe the response shape beyond the cursor and credit headers, which is a minor gap.

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?

Although the schema already documents every parameter, the description adds substantial meaning by mapping actions to supported blockchains, blockchain to networks, and explaining the pagination cursor relationship. This goes far beyond the schema's enum lists and directly helps an agent choose valid parameter combinations.

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 opening line 'Query EVM address full history' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from non-EVM tools like utxo_address_history. The subsequent action list (get-statistics, list-transactions, list-token-transfers, etc.) further clarifies the exact scope of the 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 provides strong usage context: it states the prerequisite ('requires synced address'), the supported actions, and the exact blockchain/network combinations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'EVM' qualifier and sibling tool names make the intended use clear.

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