get_history

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-like operation through 'Return', but it does not mention ordering, pagination, account validation, error behavior, or whether only confirmed entries are included. This is sparse, though not misleading.

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 entire description is one focused sentence with no filler. The core action, resource, and parameter meaning are all front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simple read tool with two parameters this is close to sufficient, but the lack of annotations and output schema means the description does not fully cover return-value semantics, safety profile, or when to prefer a sibling tool. The phrase 'on-chain entries' is also vague without further definition.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does give meaning to both parameters: `count` is the number of entries returned and `account` is a nano_ account. However, it adds no detail about default behavior, bounds, or formatting beyond what the schema's type/default fields already show.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('the last `count` on-chain entries for a nano_ account'). It is distinct enough from siblings like get_balance and get_address, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them and 'entries' is somewhat ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternative account-related tools such as get_balance, get_address, or verify_payment. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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