Wallet History

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the operation reads recent transactions (implying read-only), but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, error conditions, or any prerequisites like wallet existence. It adds moderate context beyond the schema by saying 'recent' and 'from the RustChain network', but stops short of a full behavioral disclosure.

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 with no redundant words. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds context without padding. 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?

This is a simple tool with two parameters, an output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose but omits any mention of whether the wallet must exist, whether the call is read-only, or any pagination behavior (though limit is in schema). For a basic read operation, this is minimally adequate but not complete enough to anticipate common agent uncertainties.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both wallet_id and limit already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters themselves; it only paraphrases 'specified wallet'. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, so this score 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 action ('Get') and the resource ('transaction history for a wallet'), and the second sentence reinforces it with 'Retrieves recent transactions'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wallet_balance (balance vs. history) and wallet_transfer_signed (mutating operation).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like wallet_balance for current balance or wallet_list for wallet enumeration, nor any exclusions. The agent must infer the use case from the tool name alone.

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