api_indexer_lookup_account_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get account transaction history', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'itemsPerPage' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like (no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 10 parameters.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get account transaction history'), making it easy to parse quickly. No structural issues are present.

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, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination, error conditions, or how parameters interact (e.g., time vs. round filters). For a data retrieval tool with many filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 10 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying transaction history retrieval, which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Get account transaction history' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('account transaction history'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'api_indexer_lookup_account_by_id' or 'api_indexer_search_for_transactions' that might also retrieve transaction-related data, making it somewhat generic.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'api_indexer_search_for_transactions', 'api_algod_get_pending_transactions_by_address'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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