radiant_get_token_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond a generic 'get' statement by exposing the non-obvious offset-based pagination instability, warning about duplicate/gap risks, and suggesting a mitigation strategy. This is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 purpose is stated first, and the critical pagination caveat is clearly flagged and separated from the main description. It is well-structured for quick consumption.

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 read-only token history tool with a fully documented parameter schemaaint and no output schema, the description covers the main operational hazard: pagination instability. It does not describe the shape of returned entries, but 'transaction history' is reasonably self-explanatory and the pagination guidance is the key missing piece that the description supplies.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance by explaining how offset behavior can cause shifting entries, which enriches the semantics of limit/offset beyond their schema descriptions.

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 verb-resource pair: 'Get transaction history for a specific Glyph token.' This effectively distinguishes it from more generic history tools like radiant_get_history, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast them.

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 pagination caveat gives practical usage guidance for this specific tool, recommending a single-call fetch for stable enumeration when count is bounded. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as radiant_get_history, radiant_get_token_utxos, or radiant_get_swap_history.

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