token_transfer_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the source is chain logs, indicating a read operation, but fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, rate limits, or that it returns historical data. The simple mention of chain logs is insufficient for full 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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing essential information. It earns its place but is too short to be effective.

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 has 5 parameters (1 required, 0% schema coverage), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is very incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use parameters, or default behaviors. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any parameter except implying the address is involved. Parameters like token, toBlock, fromBlock, and direction are not explained or mentioned. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 specifies 'ERC-20 transfer events involving an address' and mentions using chain logs, which gives a clear verb-resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like address_token_transfers or token_transfers, which likely serve similar purposes. The purpose is clear but not distinctive.

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 says 'read from chain logs rather than the explorer, so it works on any network.' This implies when to use it (on any network) but provides no explicit when-not or alternative recommendations. There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over similar siblings like address_token_transfers.

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