gno_wallet_transfersRetrieve a wallet's incoming and outgoing coin transfers, sorted newest first, with cursor-based pagination to navigate transaction history.
A wallet's incoming and outgoing coin transfers, newest first, cursor-paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | next_cursor from a previous page | |
| address | Yes | g1… address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully adds that results are newest first and cursor-paginated, which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires any permissions, or what kind of response to expect.
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?
One tightly packed sentence conveys the resource, scope, ordering, and pagination style. Every word earns its place, and key ordering information is front-loaded.
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 simple paginated list tool, the description covers the essential retrieval semantics. However, with no output schema or annotations, the agent is left without information on return shape or side effects, so completeness is adequate but not strong.
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%: address and cursor are described, but limit is not. The description reinforces pagination via the cursor mention, slightly adding to the schema. It does not add meaning for limit or address 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 identifies the resource as a wallet's incoming and outgoing coin transfers, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gno_wallet_tokens and gno_get_transactions. The verb is implicit but the resource and scope are specific.
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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as gno_get_transactions or gno_wallet_tokens. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide between related wallet-focused tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.