sodax_get_user_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about returning 'history' for a wallet, which aligns with read-only behavior. It doesn't contradict annotations or add beyond what they imply, but it confirms the data scope adequately.

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, well-structured sentence with 7 words. It is front-loaded with the key action and scope, containing no fluff or redundant information. Every word 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?

The description provides a minimal but functional overview. It does not explain pagination, filtering semantics (e.g., toBlock, fromBlock), or the output format despite the schema covering param details. Given there is no output schema, a note about return type would improve completeness. Still adequate for a simple query tool.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description only reinforces the purpose without adding new meaning. As per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly.

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'), resource ('intent/transaction history'), and scope ('for a specific wallet address'). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like sodax_get_transaction (single transaction) and sodax_get_intent (broader context) by specifying the wallet address focus.

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 usage for a specific wallet but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sodax_get_intent or sodax_get_transaction. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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