get_recent_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('natural language descriptions') and implies read-only behavior via 'Get', but it does not mention pagination, sorting, or authentication. The added behavioral trait (natural language descriptions) gives it a 3 rather than lower.

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 12-word sentence that conveys the purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it extremely 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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a clear purpose but does not fully cover expected behavior or return details. It is adequate but could benefit from mentioning the default limit or the nature of 'natural language descriptions' to be more complete.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter (chain, limit, walletAddress) already described. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond mentioning the wallet address, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action ('Get recent transactions') and resource ('wallet address'), and adds a distinguishing feature ('natural language descriptions') that differentiates it from sibling tools like get_transaction_details or get_translated_transaction. It is clear and 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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need recent transactions for a wallet address), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or scenarios to avoid. It provides clear context without exclusions, matching a 4.

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