get_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, but it only discloses pagination support – which the schema's cursor and limit fields already document. It says nothing about sort order (newest first?), whether the entire history or a retention window is returned, or whether the call requires auth, all of which an agent would want to know before calling an unpaginated-looking read.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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?

Adequate minimum: it names the resource and mentions pagination. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry the return shape (what a 'transaction' contains), default behavior when wallet_ids is omitted, and ordering – none of which appear here.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 with the schema doing the heavy lifting. The description adds little beyond confirming multi-wallet scope, and says nothing about the default-all-wallets behavior or the 100 cap at a higher level.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get transaction history') plus the scope ('one or more wallets'), which distinguishes it from the single-record sibling get_transaction_by_id. It never names that sibling or explains the batch-vs-single distinction explicitly, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this over get_transaction_by_id, get_wallet_balance, or other history-adjacent siblings. The only hint of scope ('one or more wallets') is repeated from the schema rather than presented as usage criteria.

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