Get swaps

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world. The description adds the important nuance that results include a per-mint net-position summary and can be scoped by includeTrades, plus the normalization framing. But it doesn't mention pagination/resume behavior or rate/scan limits, which matter for a history scan. Modest value above annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences: first defines return content, second states use cases. Front-loaded and no filler, though the use-case sentence is somewhat generic marketing framing rather than operational guidance.

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?

No output schema, so the description's enumeration of return fields is useful and partially compensates. But pagination semantics (resumeBeforeSignature) and the meaning of the per-mint summary are not fully specified for an agent that must resume scans. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 80%, so the schema mostly carries parameter meaning. The description clarifies the output shape (trades vs. summary) that affects how includeTrades is used, but doesn't explain limit, resumeBeforeSignature, or source beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource (DEX swap history for a wallet) and it enumerates exactly what's returned: sold, bought, venue and fee per trade, plus per-mint net position. Clearly distinct from siblings like get_transfers or get_transactions which return raw transfers/txs rather than normalized swaps.

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?

Explicit use cases named: trading behaviour, wash-trading, PnL groundwork. But it doesn't warn against alternatives, e.g. that wallet_pnl or get_transfers exist, so an agent isn't told when to pick those instead. Clear context without exclusions.

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