get_transactions_by_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination, sort order (newest first), and return fields. However, it omits potential error handling, rate limits, or authorization needs. Given the read-only nature, the transparency is good but not exhaustive.

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 concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, lists key fields, mentions pagination and sort, and ends with sibling tool references. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description usefully lists return fields. It differentiates from siblings and covers pagination. Missing details like error messages or rate limits, but for a list tool with well-documented schema, it is fairly complete.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., pagination details are in the schema). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists normal (external) transactions for an Ethereum address, specifying returned fields (value, direction, gas price, etc.). It also distinguishes from siblings by directing users to get_erc20_transfers for ERC-20 and get_internal_transactions for contract-to-contract calls, demonstrating specific verb+resource and differentiation.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance and alternatives: 'For ERC-20 transfers, use get_erc20_transfers. For contract-to-contract calls, use get_internal_transactions.' It also implies this tool is for normal external transactions, giving clear context for usage.

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