getAddressTransactions

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 only states what the tool does without mentioning any behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). For a tool that likely queries blockchain data, this omission is significant, as it leaves the agent without crucial operational context.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. This efficiency is appropriate for a simple tool, though it may sacrifice detail for brevity.

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 (fetching transactions from blockchain networks), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral aspects, output format, or usage distinctions from siblings. For a tool with potential nuances in blockchain data retrieval, this leaves the agent with inadequate information to use it effectively.

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 50% (only the 'chain' parameter has a description). The description does not add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'address' parameter format (e.g., Ethereum address) or clarifying the 'chain' parameter's numeric vs. string input. Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline is 3, as the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds meaningful 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 purpose: 'Get transactions for a specific address.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('transactions'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'getTransaction', 'getAddressTokenTransfers', or 'getAddressInternalTransactions', which also retrieve transaction-related data for addresses, leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.

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 fetch transaction data (e.g., 'getTransaction', 'getAddressTokenTransfers'), there is no indication of whether this tool returns all transactions, specific types, or how it differs. This lack of context makes it difficult for an agent to choose correctly among similar tools.

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