Get address transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that results are newest-first and paginated, while making the read-only nature clear. It doesn't mention error cases or rate limits, but for a straightforward read/list tool, the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two compact sentences state the resource, ordering, and persistence/modality in a front-loaded way. There is no repetitive restatement of the tool name or unrelated details.

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 input schema is fully documented and the resource is clearly stated; an agent can select and invoke this tool with confidence. The only weakness is that the description does not confirm the shape of the returned transaction objects, which is typically useful because there is no output schema.

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 100%, and each parameter has a clear textual description in the JSON Schema (address, page, pageSize, network). The tool description adds no unique parameter-level meaning, but with full schema coverage the description does not need to compensate.

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 definition clearly identifies the resource being accessed (transaction history of an address), the source system (Blockscout explorer), and the ordering (newest first). This is easily distinguished from the sibling get_transaction, which targets a single transaction rather than an address's history.

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 an address's transaction history is needed, and 'Paginated' hints at paging through multiple results. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_transaction or state when this tool is not appropriate, so guidance is mainly implicit rather than explicit.

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