execution-run-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of recent transactions with specific types (mints, burns, transfers), which adds behavioral context beyond just 'get.' However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'recent' means temporally.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second adds behavioral detail about return content. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output details.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (read-only historical data retrieval), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and what it returns but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or the structure of returned transactions, which would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'limit' with its type, description, and constraints. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get transaction history for your wallet' specifies the verb (get) and resource (transaction history). It distinguishes from siblings like get_balance (which returns current balance) and transfer (which initiates transfers). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from compute or sign, though those are clearly different operations.

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 usage context through 'for your wallet' and 'recent transactions,' suggesting this is for viewing historical data rather than current state (get_balance) or performing actions (transfer, sign). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites like authentication requirements.

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