getPoolTransactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the requirement for network and pool address but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'recent' means (time window). It also doesn't describe the return format or pagination behavior beyond what's implied by parameters.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists transaction types and requirements. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (transaction data structure), how pagination works with page/limit versus cursor, or behavioral aspects like rate limits. The agent would lack sufficient context to use this tool effectively without trial and error.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that network and pool address are required, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage nuances. 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 action ('Get recent transactions') and resource ('for a specific pool'), with specific transaction types enumerated ('shows swaps, adds, removes'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getPoolDetails or getPoolOHLCV, which also retrieve pool-related data but for different purposes.

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 implies usage context by stating 'Requires network and pool address', which are mandatory parameters, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getPoolDetails (for pool metadata) or getPoolOHLCV (for price data). No exclusions or specific scenarios are mentioned.

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