Get Transaction History

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: the maximum of 250 transactions per request and the credit cost per address. It does not describe the response format, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 concise, consisting of four short sentences: core action, filtering options, max limit, and cost. Each sentence adds distinct value, and the main verb is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description covers filtering, pagination, limit, and cost, but does not explain the return value structure or any prerequisites. Given the missing output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 100% coverage for all 7 parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat parameter-level details. It mentions filtering by chain/type/date and the max limit, which are already in the schema, adding no new meaning.

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 'Query transaction history with filtering and pagination', specifying the verb and resource. It adds scope details like filtering by chain, type, and date range, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as octav_get_historical.

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 querying transaction history with filtering and pagination, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like octav_sync_transactions or octav_get_historical. The cost and limit information offer some decision context, but no direct comparisons.

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