get_history

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: ordering, limit default, and the full status semantics, including x402-specific states and what settle_tx means. It doesn't describe error behavior or response container, but it goes well beyond a minimal definition.

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?

Three efficient sentences with no filler, and the most important outcome is front-loaded. The status enumeration is dense but justified because there's no output schema; structurally it's clean and scannable.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies necessary context: what is returned, ordering, status vocabulary, and default limit. Some response-shape details are unstated, but the status enumeration compensates for the missing output schema.

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?

The only parameter, limit, is fully documented in the schema with default and max. The description adds 'Use limit to cap how many come back (default 20)', but this largely restates the schema and offers no material new semantic info.

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 concrete verb ('returns'), names the resource ('the active account's recent transaction attempts'), and explicitly includes ordering ('newest first'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling get_balances/get_wallet_status without needing to inspect schemas.

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 makes the intended use inferable: when an agent needs recent transaction attempts of the active account. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, nor does it contrast alternatives like get_wallet_status or x402_fetch, so the usage guidance stays implicit rather than directive.

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