get_sends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description does not add behavioral details like pagination behavior, return format, or rate limits. With the safety profile covered by annotations, the minimal description is acceptable but not enriching.

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, well-structured sentence: 'Get all sends (token transfers) from a specific address.' It is front-loaded with the primary verb and object, and every word adds meaning. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 that the tool is a read-only query with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could benefit from a hint about pagination (since 'all sends' might imply a single bulk response), but the schema's limit/cursor/offset parameters already signal this. Overall, the blank is adequately filled for a simple list-fetching 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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (limit, cursor, offset, address) are already documented. The description only restates the address scope ('from a specific address'), adding no deeper semantics beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 a clear resource ('sends' with clarification 'token transfers') scoped to 'a specific address'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_address_transactions by narrowing to token transfers, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 use when wanting token transfers from a given address, but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools (e.g., get_address_transactions or get_asset_balances). There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned, leaving the context only implied.

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