fetchWalletActivity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fetches' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify critical details like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of the returned activity history. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more structured if it included brief parameter hints.

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?

Given the complexity of fetching transaction history, lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'activity history' includes, how results are formatted, or any behavioral constraints, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'wallet address' for the 'address' parameter, ignoring the 'limit' parameter entirely. This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the basic schema, leaving key usage details unclear.

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 ('fetches') and resource ('transaction activity history for a Solana wallet address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyzeWallet' or 'getTransactionDetails', which might offer overlapping functionality.

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 the sibling tools 'analyzeWallet' or 'getTransactionDetails'. It lacks context about alternatives, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.