Query chain events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the scope of each query mode but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error conditions, response format, or exact pagination behavior, making it adequate but not enriched beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently enumerates the three usage modes without redundancy. Every clause contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers all major functional aspects: fetching by id, listing account history, and chain-wide paging. It does not detail return values or error handling, but given the strong annotations and complete schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete for a query tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (limit, account, eventId, pageToken, includePayload) already explained. The tool description adds high-level usage context (e.g., eventId for fetching one, account for history, pageToken implicitly for paging) but does not introduce meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as querying events emitted by Thru programs, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on events and offering three concrete modes (by id, by account, chain-wide), which goes beyond a generic 'query events' phrasing.

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 provides clear context for when to use each mode: fetching a single event, listing an account's history, or paging through recent events chain-wide. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_transaction or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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