wallet_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: cost ($0.002/call), requirement (wallet required), merging, sorting, cap per direction, output fields (block, tx hash, counterparty, asset, decimal value). This exceeds typical 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with cost and requirement. Every sentence adds useful information: token types, sorting, output fields, and limitations. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description explains output structure. It covers capability and limitations (cap, fromBlock). Lacks error handling or rate limits, but is sufficient for a data retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-described. The description adds minor context (cap per direction) but mostly restates schema defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states it returns asset transfers (incoming+outgoing) for a wallet, covering multiple token types, merged and sorted. It clearly distinguishes from balanced-focused sibling tools like wallet_balances and wallet_balance.

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 context on when to use (get recent transfers) and mentions limitations like cap of 100 per direction and fromBlock for deeper history. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling set implies differentiation.

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