pay_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful trait ('Shows both sent and received transfers'), but does not clarify recency bounds, authentication requirements, or the response shape. It is not misleading but is minimal.

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 exactly two sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a clarifying detail in the second. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, scope, and a distinguishing behavior. It lacks explicit details about return format or recency semantics, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly complete for selection and 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% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the schema fully documents its meaning. The description does not add additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, thus baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('USDC transaction history'), with a clear network context ('on Base'). It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating it shows both sent and received transfers, making it clearly a history tool versus balance/send/request functions.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool (to retrieve recent transaction history on Base). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, such as 'use pay_balance for current balance' or 'use pay_send to create transactions'.

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