api_indexer_lookup_asset_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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (though 'nextToken' and 'itemsPerPage' parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the returned transactions will have. For a tool with 13 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a lookup tool and front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or provide any context about the transaction data structure. While the schema documents parameters well, the description fails to provide necessary operational context for proper tool invocation.

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 already documents all 13 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying asset-based filtering through 'involving this asset', which is already covered by the required 'assetId' parameter in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 transactions involving this asset' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('transactions involving this asset'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'api_indexer_lookup_account_transactions' or 'api_indexer_search_for_transactions', which also retrieve transactions but with different scopes or filters.

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 that also retrieve transactions (e.g., 'api_indexer_lookup_account_transactions', 'api_indexer_search_for_transactions'), there's no indication of when this asset-specific lookup is preferred over other transaction retrieval methods.

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