get_internal_transactions

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral information. It discloses the operation is read-only (listing), explains the nature of internal transactions, and lists return fields. Lacks info on pagination or rate limits, but is transparent about core behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and definition, second provides usage context and return fields. Front-loaded effectively.

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 6 parameters, description covers purpose, return fields, and use cases. Could mention pagination defaults or max offset, but schema already details these. Adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 describes all 6 parameters (100% coverage). Description does not add new parameter details beyond what schema provides, so baseline 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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'internal transactions (contract-to-contract calls)' for an address. It clearly distinguishes from EOA transfers, matching the sibling tool 'get_transactions_by_address' focus.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use for tracing DeFi interactions or contract execution flows,' providing clear context. Does not explicitly list when not to use or directly compare to siblings, but the purpose naturally differentiates.

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