get_token_transfers_by_address

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states support for pagination with specific instructions on how to handle it, warns about performance implications of omitting age_from, and clarifies that transfers include both to and from the address. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by specific use cases and important behavioral notes. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: establishing the core function, demonstrating parameter usage, and providing critical implementation guidance about pagination. No wasted words.

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 read-only tool with comprehensive schema documentation but no output schema, the description provides excellent context: it explains what data is returned (ERC-20 token transfers), includes practical usage patterns, addresses performance considerations, and documents pagination behavior. The main gap is lack of information about return format/structure.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already thoroughly documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, mainly through usage examples that show parameter combinations. It doesn't provide additional format details or constraints beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Get ERC-20 token transfers') and resource ('for an address within a specific time range'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_transactions_by_address or get_tokens_by_address by focusing specifically on token transfers rather than general transactions or token holdings.

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 explicit usage examples with different parameter combinations, showing when to use specific parameter sets (e.g., with/without age_to, with/without token). It also includes guidance about pagination handling and strongly recommends providing age_from to avoid heavy queries, giving clear operational context.

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