get_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure, and it does so well: it explains ordering, lists all possible statuses, defines special status semantics such as signed/settled and the role of settle_tx, and notes the default limit. This materially enriches what an agent can infer without invoking the tool.

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 description is tightly structured: first a purpose statement, then a compact status enumeration, then a one-sentence usage note about the limit. Every sentence earns its place, and no padding or redundant context exists.

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, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all the important context an agent needs: ordering, semantics of every status value, meaning of settle_tx, and limit behavior. Nothing material is missing that would prevent correct invocation or interpretation.

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 for the only parameter is 100%, and the schema already documents the default (20), the upper bound, and the type. The description repeats the default and the limiting behavior but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the structured schema already provides, so 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?

The description clearly states that the tool returns recent transaction attempts, newest first — a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balances or get_wallet_status. It does not depend on the name alone and adds concrete details about transaction statuses.

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 implies appropriate use: whenever an agent needs to inspect the latest transaction attempts and their settlement statuses. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource context is clear enough that an agent is unlikely to confuse it with balance, wallet, or payment-execution tools.

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