get_wallet_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the cost per request ($0.005), which is a behavioral trait beyond the name. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, ordering, or potential errors, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 that states the purpose, followed by a concise cost disclosure. Every word earns its place, and no redundant information is present.

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 simple read-only tool with two fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose and cost. However, since there is no output schema, it does not specify the shape of the returned transaction history, which would enhance completeness. It is adequate but has a clear gap around return value details.

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 has 100% coverage for both parameters (chain, address), so the description does not need to explain them further. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already fully documents them.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Get') and specific resource ('transaction history for a wallet address'). It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like get_wallet_balances (balances) and get_wallet_pnl (profit/loss), 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 usage: when you need a wallet's transaction history, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives for related wallet operations, so guidance is only implicit.

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