get_transactions_by_address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains pagination behavior ('SUPPORTS PAGINATION'), clarifies that a single transaction can have multiple records from internal calls, and provides guidance on using 'internal_transaction_index' for execution order. This adds meaningful operational context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, exclusions, internal transaction explanation, use cases, pagination). It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the use case examples could be slightly more concise. Most sentences earn their place by providing valuable information.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what the tool returns (native transfers and smart contract interactions), what it excludes (token transfers), how to handle internal transactions, provides use case examples, and explains pagination. The main gap is lack of information about return format or structure, but this is mitigated by the comprehensive parameter guidance.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description provides use case examples that illustrate how parameters work together (e.g., showing age_from alone vs with age_to and methods), but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'retrieves native currency transfers and smart contract interactions (calls, internal txs) for an address' and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by stating 'EXCLUDES TOKEN TRANSFERS' and pointing to 'get_token_transfers_by_address' for token history. This provides specific verb+resource+scope with clear sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For token history, use get_token_transfers_by_address'. It also includes specific use cases with parameter examples and explains what the tool excludes, giving clear context for when to use this tool and when not to.

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