Sync Transactions

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

Annotations already indicate write/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds important context: it costs 1 credit per address and forces indexing. This goes beyond what annotations provide, disclosing a rate-limiting cost and the tool's triggering nature, which is valuable for an agent to anticipate side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential behavioral and cost information. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding.

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 trigger tool, the description covers what it does, when it matters, and its cost. It does not explain return values or error behavior, but since there is no output schema and the tool likely returns a status, this is a minor gap. Overall, it is adequately complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 describes the 'addresses' parameter fully (array of wallet addresses, max 10). The description does not add further parameter-level detail; the cost per address is a behavioral note rather than parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function: manually triggering transaction synchronization for addresses and forcing immediate indexing of latest transactions. The verb 'trigger' and resource 'transaction synchronization' are specific and distinguish it from sibling read-only tools like octav_get_transactions.

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 when to use it—when you want to force an immediate sync rather than relying on automatic updates—but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'manually' and 'Forces immediate' phrasing provides context but no exclusionary guidance.

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