Retrieves complete transaction history for any Radiant address. Returns all entries without pagination, so expect large responses for active addresses.
Get transaction history for a Radiant address. Returns ALL entries (no pagination at this layer) — for very active addresses, expect a large response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Radiant address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by stating that ALL entries are returned, there is no pagination at this layer, and active addresses may produce a large response. It could add more detail about ordering or return shape, but the core behavior is transparent.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the important behavioral caveat about large responses is placed immediately after.
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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and behavioral expectations. It is missing only explicit guidance about sibling alternatives and the response format, but neither is critical given the low 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter, 'address', is already described as 'Radiant address.' The tool description repeats this without adding extra semantic detail, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get transaction history for a Radiant address.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like radiant_get_token_history or radiant_get_transaction, since it targets address-level transaction history rather than token history or a single transaction.
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 gives clear context: it returns the full transaction history, and the 'no pagination' caveat warns agents when a response may be large. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.