get_transaction_transfers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'get detailed transfer information' without explaining what 'detailed' includes, the scope of 'recent', or any edge cases. It does not disclose whether only token transfers are returned or if all transfers are included, leaving the agent guessing.

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 sentence with no waste, immediately stating the action and focus. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the important terms.

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 and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns and from what scope. It mentions 'recent transactions' and 'limit' but does not explain how these interact or what 'detailed transfer information' concretely looks like. The description is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's output.

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 all parameters are documented (chain, walletAddress, limit). The description adds minimal extra meaning, only the phrase 'focus on token movements' hints at parameter relevance. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 action (get), resource (transfer information from recent transactions), and focus (token movements). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_transaction_details by specifying 'recent transactions' and 'transfer information', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage for retrieving transfer-related data from recent transactions, but does not provide explicit when/when-not guidance or mention alternative tools. It gives a sense of context ('recent transactions', 'token movements') but lacks exclusions.

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