Get transfers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description usefully adds that results are parsed rather than raw and that filtering happens server-side, which is real context. However it claims a 'slot range' filter that does not exist among the parameters and says nothing about result volume or pagination for a feed with a 1000-row cap.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the capability statement is front-loaded before the routing advice. Every clause earns its place by conveying scope, filters, or selection 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?

With no output schema and ten parameters, the description carries more burden than it does: it never characterizes the returned transfer records (fields, USD enrichment via usdAtTime, ordering), nor mentions the limit/pagination behavior. For a feed-style tool this leaves meaningful gaps an agent would need before calling it confidently.

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 60%, and the description enumerates filter categories (counterparty, direction, mint, time) that map onto real parameters, partially compensating. It omits solMode, sortOrder, usdAtTime and limit entirely, and advertises a 'slot range' filter with no corresponding parameter, which is mildly misleading about what can actually be filtered.

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 resource and scope: a parsed SOL + SPL transfer feed for a single wallet, with the filter dimensions enumerated. It distinguishes itself from raw-signature walking, but never names the concrete sibling it supersedes (e.g. get_transactions, get_transaction_raw), so an agent must still infer the boundary from the other tool's 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 selection rule: 'the fastest primitive for fund-movement questions — prefer it over walking signatures.' That is an actionable when-to-use signal with a stated alternative approach. It stops short of a when-not condition or naming a sibling tool, so it is short of a 5.

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