bags_get_token_claim_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states pagination behavior, the read-only nature, and the free tier, while also listing the returned data fields. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a simple read-only query this is reasonably transparent.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds return fields, pagination, and tier information in an efficient order. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 paginated read-only tool with fully documented schema parameters, the description covers the return content, pagination mechanism, and safety tier. Since no output schema exists, the explicit list of returned fields is especially valuable and sufficient for an agent to understand what this tool provides.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults for limit and offset and the meaning of tokenMint. The description adds the phrase "Paginated via limit/offset," but this largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Get the fee-claim audit trail for a token" with details on what is returned (who claimed, how much, when, transaction signature). This distinguishes it from siblings like bags_get_token_claim_stats, which would return aggregate statistics rather than individual audit events.

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 clearly indicates this is for retrieving paginated audit events and notes it is on the "Free read-only tier," making the safe/read-only use case clear. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the audit-trail wording provides sufficient context for selecting it over statistical or claim-execution tools.

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