Get Address History

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining the dual-network behavior, the mainnet default, the witness-cache fallback, and the raw integer amount semantics. It also warns about displaying raw integers and points to helper tools for decimal resolution. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into labeled paragraphs for network and amounts. Every sentence adds actionable guidance, and the formatting makes the long description easy to scan. No filler or repetition of schema facts.

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?

Covers the main traps an agent will face: network ambiguity, raw unit formatting, and witness handling. The only notable gap is the unexplained 'update_witnesses' parameter and, since there is no output schema, a bit more explicit return-shape detail would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain 'network', 'addresses' count, and 'witnesses' fallback, but 'update_witnesses' is never described, leaving its meaning entirely to inference. This partial coverage keeps the score at 3 rather than higher.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns history for 1 to 20 addresses.' The 'Raw hub read' label clearly distinguishes this low-level access from higher-level sibling tools like obyte_analyze_address or obyte_get_portfolio_summary. The count range also sharpens the scope.

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?

Provides clear operational context: raw hub read, witness cache behavior, and explicit network selection guidance with a warning to confirm the user's network before calling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the raw-read framing makes its place among siblings reasonably clear.

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