Wallet transfers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two real traits beyond the schema: result ordering (newest first) and the pagination model (cursor), but says nothing about permissions, whether it is read-only, or what a transfer record contains.

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?

A single front-loaded fragment that packs purpose, ordering, and pagination into one sentence with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information an agent needs.

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?

For a three-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the essentials are covered: what is returned, in what order, and how to page through it. Nothing critical to a correct first call is missing.

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 coverage is 67%, with address ('g1… address') and cursor ('next_cursor from a previous page') already documented in the schema, while limit has only bounds and a default. The phrase 'cursor-paginated' reinforces the schema's pagination intent but adds no syntax or limits beyond it, so baseline 3 is right.

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 the specific resource (a wallet's incoming and outgoing coin transfers), so an agent can tell it is a wallet-scoped transfer listing. It does not distinguish itself from similarly-named siblings such as gno_get_transactions, which is the remaining gap.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The only usable hints are 'newest first' and 'cursor-paginated', which describe output shape rather than when to pick this tool over gno_get_transactions or gno_token_balance.

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