arc200_get_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying mechanism ('via indexer') and names the library ('ulujs getEvents'), which helps the agent understand this is an off-chain, read-oriented query. However, it does not explicitly state the read-only nature, return format, or indexer consistency limitations, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 11-word sentence that front-loads the action and object. It contains no filler, is immediately scannable, and every word earns its place. The parenthetical event types and implementation note are compact.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It doesn't describe the return value shape (e.g., a list of event objects with fields like name, args, transaction ID), nor explain how the round/address filters combine. The 'ulujs getEvents' reference implies a known format but doesn't expose it to the agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already documents; it doesn't explain how 'limit', 'address', or round filters affect event fetching. The 'Transfer + Approval' mention hints at which event types are filtered but doesn't add meaningful parameter 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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with resource 'ARC-200 contract events' and enumerates event types ('Transfer + Approval'). It distinguishes from sibling arc72_get_events by explicitly limiting to ARC-200, and the 'via indexer' note adds operational context. The only minor caveat is that the input schema's appId property references ARC-72 as well, but the description itself is unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving ARC-200 event data but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention that arc72_get_events should be used for ARC-72 contracts, nor any caveats about preferring balance/allowance queries for specific state checks. This is minimal implicit usage guidance, not a clear directive.

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