get_account_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that this is a read-only call, which chain/account type is queried, the result ordering, the default page size of 20, or that it falls back to the configured wallet when no address is given.

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 purpose sentence is perfectly front-loaded and terse. But the second sentence is an advertisement for an unrelated tool and consumes roughly half the description's budget without helping an agent call this tool.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate for what structured data lacks. It never describes what a transaction record contains, how pagination interacts with the 20-item default, or whether history is complete or truncated — significant gaps for a list 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% — limit, offset, and address are each documented, including the wallet-fallback behavior for address. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource: retrieval of an account's transaction history. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like get_transaction_status, get_account_info, or get_btc_address_txs, so an agent must guess which retrieval tool applies.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus other lookups (account info, individual tx status, BTC address txs). The only pointer is to `earning_opportunities`, which is a cross-sell suggestion, not an alternative for the same task.

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