vechainstats_get_token_transfers

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation via 'Get' and provides no detail about pagination behavior, sort semantics, data availability, or response format. This is inadequate for a history endpoint that accepts page and sort parameters.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and subject, with no redundant phrases. It is appropriately sized for the core scope it conveys.

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?

For a 4-parameter endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, a one-line purpose is insufficient. The description omits how page and sort behave, what the response contains, and any usage constraints, making it incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 50%: address and tokenType have descriptions, while page and sort do not. The description reinforces the tokenType enum values (VET/VTHO/VIP-180) but does not explain pagination or sorting, leaving half the parameters under-specified.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies both the resource ('token transfer history') and scope ('for an address'). It also names the three supported token classes (VET, VTHO, VIP-180), which differentiates it from NFT-transfer or transaction-history sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool over siblings such as vechainstats_get_nft_transfers or vechainstats_get_transactions_in/out. The description states only the tool's purpose, not when it should be selected or excluded, so the agent must infer applicability.

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