xrp_get_transaction_history

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing return format, pagination behavior, ordering, whether it includes all transaction types, or any error cases. While it implies a read-only operation, it provides no additional context about the behavior beyond what the tool's name already suggests.

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 concise sentence: 'Get transaction history for an address.' It contains no filler, is front-loaded with the action, and is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool. Every word adds value, achieving high conciseness.

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 output schema, no annotations, and a terse description, the agent has insufficient context to fully understand the tool's behavior. The description covers only the basic purpose, leaving gaps about what the history includes, response structure, limitations, and prerequisites. Given the availability of sibling tools, a more complete context would help disambiguate.

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%, with both parameters (address, limit) already described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters—it doesn't mention that limit controls the number of transactions or how address is used. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation, and the description offers no clarifying semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get transaction history for an address.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction history'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like xrp_get_transaction (singular transaction) and xrp_get_escrows. However, it doesn't elaborate on scope (e.g., incoming/outgoing, current vs. all) or explicitly differentiate among siblings, so it's clear but not maximally specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about when it is appropriate (e.g., 'use this to list past transactions' or 'instead of xrp_get_transaction') and doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This is a minimal one-liner with no usage guidance.

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