get_transaction_history

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose key behaviors. It only states the tool gets history, but does not mention that it is read-only, what data is returned, or any implications like pagination or rate limits. Minimal transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the core function.

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 retrieval tool with one optional parameter, the description is adequate but could be improved by stating typical return format or that it shows the payment history for the current node. Without an output schema, the description could provide more context about what is returned.

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%, so the schema documents the single parameter (max_payments). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Maximum number of payments to return', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves 'recent Lightning payment history', which is a specific resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pay_lightning_invoice that perform actions rather than fetching history, but does not explicitly differentiate from other read tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context for when it is appropriate, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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