getTransactionLog

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses behavioral traits: it returns up to 2 years of data, has a rate limit of 5 req/s, defaults time range to last 24h, enforces a 7-day span with both times, uses cursor pagination, and limits to 50 per page. This provides sufficient transparency for safe usage.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating the main purpose, followed by a bullet-like agent hint that adds specific usage details. It front-loads key information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential usage and constraints but falls short on explaining all parameters and the structure of the response (e.g., fields returned). This warrants a mid-range score.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains category (with enum values), currency, type, time range, limit, and cursor. However, it omits accountType (only UNIFIED, but no context), baseCoin, and transSubType, leaving gaps for 4 out of 10 parameters.

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 that the tool queries unified account wallet transaction logs with filtering capabilities. It specifies the resource ('transaction logs') and action ('Query'), distinguishing it from other tools that deal with orders or trades, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 hints on when to use the tool ('Use this to retrieve detailed wallet transaction history') and outlines filtering options, default time range, and pagination. However, it lacks when-to-use alternatives, such as comparing it to getOrderHistory or getTradeHistory.

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