Get transaction history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: default signature-level return vs full transactions, and cursor-based pagination for iterating large result sets. It stops short of stating limits or rate-limit behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core capability followed immediately by the routing condition. No filler.

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 read-only history tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, filters, pagination model and sibling differentiation. Minor gaps remain around result shape and the unused 'slot' term, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 only 25% (address and full), so the description must carry the rest. It does imply the time filters ('slot/time'), status filter and cursor pagination, but says nothing about limit, sortOrder, or the default limit of 100, and 'slot' does not map to any parameter in the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Signature-level history for an address') plus its filter and pagination capabilities, and explicitly contrasts itself with transfers, which separates it from the get_transfers sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('coverage of every transaction touching an address, not just transfers'), which excludes the transfer-only sibling. It does not address the very similar-sounding get_transactions sibling, leaving one routing ambiguity.

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