list_transactions

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

The description does not add behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). It fails to mention pagination, sorting, or that the result is a list. With annotations already declaring safety, the bar is lower, but the description should still clarify open world behavior or result format.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (not seen), the description is incomplete. It omits pagination details, the semantics of the 'all' flag, and date range format. It fails to compensate for the lack of param descriptions, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 0%. The description mentions only four filter categories (wallet, flow, asset, date) but does not explain what 'flow' means or address parameters like page_size, limit, or all. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'asset transactions' with optional filters. It distinguishes from siblings like list_trades and list_wallets, though 'flow' is ambiguous and not explained. Overall, the purpose is clear but lacks specificity on what constitutes a transaction vs. a trade.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_trades. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. This is a significant gap given the sibling tool list_trades exists.

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