address history page

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it reads exactly one page and requires an exact pagination cursor, which is useful behavioral context. It does not disclose page size, return shape, cursor source, error behavior, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The parenthetical kind enumeration is efficient, though the list slightly interrupts the core statement. It is appropriately sized for the tool.

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?

With four parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition needs to explain more than it does. The agent learns the page kinds and that a cursor is needed, but not how filters work, how the cursor is produced or represented, or what a returned page contains beyond it being paginated. This is inadequate for a paginated read tool.

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 carry the burden, and it only partially does. It enumerates the valid kind values and mentions the exact pagination cursor, adding some meaning for those two parameters. It provides no explanation of the address format, the filters object, or the structure and origin of pageCursor, leaving significant gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read one Blockscout page' and enumerates the page kinds it supports (transactions, logs, transfers, token holdings, internal transactions). It clearly conveys that this is a single-page read tied to an exact pagination cursor. It stops short of naming a sibling tool or explaining how it differs from tools like scan_address_transactions or address_overview.

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 phrase 'with exact pagination cursor' implies the tool is for continuing pagination when a cursor is known, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over scan_address_transactions or how to obtain the cursor in the first place. The agent must infer the usage context.

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