rh11_wallet_get_transactions

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly noting pagination and the quirk that the last page may include legacy entries beyond the per_page count. This is valuable for managing expectations about response size and content.

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 the additional sentence about legacy entries is valuable and not redundant. Every word earns its place.

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 description covers the key operational aspects: pagination, per_page limits, and the legacy-entry behavior. While there is no output schema to document return format, the simplicity of the tool and the annotation coverage make it adequately complete for typical usage.

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 fully documents all three parameters with descriptions (page, type, per_page), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 retrieves Rhodium11 wallet transaction history, using the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'wallet transaction history'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool rh11_wallet_get_balance by focusing on transactions rather than balance.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when transaction history is needed. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident and the sibling tools cover different domains (balance, projects, orders), so no confusion is likely.

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