arc72_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'fetches' events, but does not disclose return formats, pagination behavior, or potential limitations such as indexer dependencies or ordering. The parenthetical 'ulujs getEvents' hint is sparse and adds little context beyond the tool name.

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 that immediately states the action and target. It avoids unnecessary words and front-loads the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 should provide more context about how the tool behaves, such as what the event list looks like, how pagination works, or parameter interactions. The current description is minimal and leaves significant gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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?

The input schema provides detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema fully documents each field, including filters like txid, round, and address.

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 fetches ARC-72 Transfer, Approval, and ApprovalForAll events, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arc200_get_events because it explicitly names the ARC-72 standard and event types.

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 makes it clear this tool is for retrieving ARC-72 event logs, providing context for when an agent would use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use arc200_get_events for ARC-200 contracts'.

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