sodax_get_user_transactions

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

The description's 'Get' aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits, data freshness) are disclosed beyond what annotations already provide.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain pagination, default sorting, or the nature of the response. The openWorldHint annotation is not reflected in the description.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description does not need to add much. It adds no extra context beyond the schema, so baseline 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 action ('Get') and resource ('intent/transaction history') with a specific scope ('for a specific wallet address'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sodax_get_intent (single intent) and sodax_get_transaction (single transaction).

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 implies the tool is for retrieving transaction history of a wallet, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like sodax_get_intent or sodax_get_transaction. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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