multichain_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination, defaults, and optional logs inclusion, but lacks details on error handling for exceeding address/chain limits, rate limits, or data freshness. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences, front-loading the main action and purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or filler, making it easy to scan.

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 lack of an output schema, the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., transaction fields, pagination cursors). With 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers core functionality but leaves gaps about return values and edge cases, making it somewhat incomplete.

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?

Although parameter descriptions in the schema are complete (100% coverage), the tool description adds value by summarizing key optional parameters, clarifying limits (up to 10 addresses/chains) and the requirement of the addresses array (though the schema marks it optional, which is a minor inconsistency). This extra context helps the agent understand usage beyond raw schema.

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 fetches paginated transactions for up to 10 EVM addresses and 10 EVM chains in one call, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like single-chain transaction fetchers. It also mentions use for building Activity Feeds, further clarifying its purpose.

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 indicates the tool is useful for analyzing transaction history across multiple networks and building activity feeds, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like transactions_for_address or multichain_address_activity, so it misses some exclusion guidance.

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