List address transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds behavioral context by specifying that it lists both native and contract interactions and is paginated, which is not in the annotations. The description aligns with the read-only nature and does not contradict any annotations.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the purpose and scope. It includes necessary context (API source, pagination) without unnecessary words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It mentions pagination but not how to use page_token, what the response contains, or any prerequisites (e.g., chain_id defaults). While the schema covers requiredness and defaults, the description leaves gaps on return structure and pagination mechanics, making it only marginally complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 only 25% (only chain_id has a description). The description does not elaborate on the address format, page_size constraints, or page_token usage. Since schema coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond the general context, leaving agents to guess on critical parameters like page_token.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent transactions of an address on a chain'), includes the scope ('native + contract interactions'), and identifies the underlying API. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like avax_get_transaction (single transaction) and avax_data_list_erc20_balances (balances) without 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?

The description conveys the core function and the pagination aspect, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as avax_get_transaction for a single transaction or avax_data_list_chains for chain listings. Usage guidance is implied by the tool name and context, not explicitly articulated.

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