hl_tx_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but says nothing about pagination behavior (despite page/limit params), rate limits, auth requirements, or what the returned fills/orders actually contain.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core subject and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. Its terseness is more a completeness problem than a conciseness one.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage across four params, the description is too thin for a paginated list tool. It should at minimum explain paging and the dex filter, and clarify its overlap with get_hl_trade_history.

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 none of the four parameters (dex, page, limit, userAddress) are described. The phrase 'for a wallet' weakly implies userAddress is the key input, but dex, page, and limit are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (Get), resource (HL transaction list), and clarifies scope with the parenthetical '(fills / orders) for a wallet.' An agent can tell it retrieves transaction data, but the description does not distinguish it from close siblings like get_hl_trade_history or get_trade_history, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or how it relates to get_hl_trade_history. The agent must infer from the name alone when this list is preferable to the trade-history siblings.

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