Get activity history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the breadth of event types returned and the important semantic that omitting all identifiers broadens scope to the whole network rather than erroring. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering of the feed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope before the long enumeration of event types. The second sentence ('Covers transaction history and event timelines') is largely redundant with the first, but the overall length is reasonable for a tool with three distinct modes.

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?

With no output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it: the three scope modes and the event taxonomy. Gaps remain around result ordering and whether the feed is paginated, which matters for a history-retrieval tool but do not block correct invocation.

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 all five parameters are already documented, including the identical no-identifier fallback note on tokenId. The description repackages the property/wallet split but adds no syntax, format, or combination semantics beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the activity feed') and precisely delineates three scopes: property, wallet, and network-wide fallback when no identifier is supplied. The enumerated event categories (mints, transfers, sales, loans, liquidations, config changes) further pin down what 'activity' means. An agent can select this tool without opening the schema.

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 explains the routing logic between the three modes: slug/tokenId for property activity, address for wallet activity, and nothing for network-wide recent activity. It does not, however, explain when to prefer this over adjacent tools like get_property or get_portfolio, nor does it state any exclusions or combined-filter behavior.

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