utxo_address_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (cursor vs offset), the prerequisite of a synced address, and credit costs per action/blockchain. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but 'Query' implies that, and the credit information adds behavioral context beyond a simple read operation. It lacks explicit statements about side effects, but for a query tool this is not a major gap.

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 structured with bullet points and sections (Pagination, Actions, Blockchain -> Networks, Credits), making it easy to scan. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first line. While it is fairly long, the density of useful information justifies the length, and each section serves a distinct practical purpose.

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—10 parameters, 4 actions, 6 blockchains, varying pagination schemes, and no output schema—the description covers the essential context comprehensively: supported combinations, pagination rules, and credit costs. It lacks return value details, but for a history query tool this is partially implied. The description is complete enough for an agent to select the appropriate action and parameters.

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% coverage, but the description adds significant cross-cutting semantics: it maps each action to supported blockchains, explains which pagination parameters apply to which action, and specifies that 'list-transactions-by-timestamp' requires the timestamp parameter. This goes well beyond the individual schema descriptions, making the parameter choices and combinations clear.

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: "Query UTXO address full history" with the prerequisite "requires synced address." The verb 'Query' and the specific resource 'UTXO address full history' distinguish it from sibling tools like evm_address_history, and the detailed action list further specifies what it does.

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 explicit usage context by listing which actions support which blockchains, the pagination method for each action, and the requirement for a synced address. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use evm_address_history for EVM chains'), but the action/blockchain compatibility matrix serves as clear guidance for when to use this tool and which sub-actions to choose.

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