get_transfer_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the basic behavior: returns incoming and outgoing transfers with details, and is implicitly read-only via 'get'. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, or error handling. The description adds some behavioral context beyond the schema but lacks depth.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a practical usage hint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the core purpose and a prerequisite, but it does not mention pagination (page/pageSize) behavior or the response structure beyond 'details'. This is adequate for basic use but leaves clear gaps about how to handle large result sets and what exactly is returned.

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 baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'within a tick range' echoes the startTick/endTick schema descriptions, and 'Qubic address or saved wallet' mirrors the address parameter description. It does not add meaningful new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 function: 'Get the transfer history for a Qubic address or saved wallet within a tick range.' It specifies the resource (transfer history), the scope (address/wallet, tick range), and returns summary (incoming/outgoing transfers). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_transaction and get_balance, which handle different resources.

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 a clear usage prerequisite: 'Use get_tick_info first to find the current tick number.' This gives context on when to use this tool and how to obtain a needed input. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., get_transaction) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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