get_address_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral details beyond a restatement of the read-only nature, such as pagination behavior, return format, or data scope. It does not contradict annotations, but it provides no additional transparency.

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 with no redundant words. It gets straight to the point and earns its place with zero filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is a straightforward read operation with solid annotations and a fully documented schema. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention pagination, return shape, or any additional constraints. This is adequate for a simple getter but leaves some gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the API.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all four parameters (address, limit, cursor, offset), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 applies, as the schema carries the semantic load.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('transaction history for a Bitcoin address on Counterparty'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_address_orders and get_sends, which target different data types.

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 implies usage for retrieving transaction history for an address, which is straightforward. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as get_address_orders or get_sends, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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