Token Transfers

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the adaptive block-window algorithm, row ordering and max (500), `from_block` default behavior, and error degradation into an RpcError-kind dict. This gives the agent a solid model of runtime behavior and failure modes.

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 dense but every sentence carries operational value: windowing mechanics, output format, error behavior, and an invocation example. The length is justified by the tool's complexity, though a bit more scannability would help.

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 description covers input semantics, output row fields and ordering, windowing behavior, error handling, and a call example, which is complete even though an output schema exists. No critical operational detail appears missing for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining `from_block` (anchors the walk, default latest - 300) and `contract` (the queried token address), and illustrating `limit` with an example and the 500-row max cap. However, `limit`'s own default of 100 and exact row-capping semantics remain implicit rather than explicitly stated.

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 names the exact resource (ERC-20 Transfer events for a `contract` on HyperEVM) and identifies the mechanism (`eth_getLogs`). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like trades, order_book, or wallet_balance, which concern other data categories.

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 establishes a clear context for use: retrieving recent ERC-20 transfer events for a specific contract on HyperEVM. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the event-specific scope is sufficiently clear to guide tool selection.

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