get_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 reveals pagination support but doesn't disclose other important behavioral aspects: whether the wallet_ids parameter is required (it's optional per schema), what happens when omitted, the default behavior, rate limits, authorization requirements, or return format. For a tool that likely performs reads across potentially multiple wallets, this is insufficient.

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 with key details front-loaded: what the tool returns and that it supports pagination. Every word is functional, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It loses a point for not adding usage guidance, but the conciseness itself is strong.

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 three parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more context. While it identifies the core purpose and pagination, it omits critical details like how wallet_ids works when omitted, whether the cursor is opaque, result ordering, and any limits or caveats. The tool likely needs stronger documentation to be invoked correctly by an agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'for one or more wallets' implies wallet_ids is the primary parameter, but it doesn't explain the cursor or limit parameters beyond the schema's default value. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema field names, leaving the semantics of cursor and limit under-explained.

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 tool returns transaction history for one or more wallets, using specific verbs ('Get') and resource ('transaction history'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_transaction_by_id (single transaction lookup) and get_wallets (wallet list), though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.

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. The description mentions supports pagination, implying use for large result sets, but doesn't explicitly clarify when to prefer get_transaction_by_id or other transaction-related tools. The usage context is only implied, not stated.

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