obol_wallet_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.05 USDC) which is a critical behavioral trait. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicitly stated. It also does not mention response format, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. While the cost disclosure is valuable, the lack of explicit read-only confirmation and output details makes this a moderate score.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the cost as important additional information. There is no wasted language, and every word earns its place. It is immediately readable and scannable.

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 is relatively simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description is not expected to be exhaustive. However, since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the response contains. It mentions categorization, which is helpful, but does not describe the structure of the response, any limits on history length, or whether multiple addresses are supported. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is a moderate level of completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter 'address' with description 'Solana wallet address'. The tool description adds the context that this address is for a wallet whose transaction history is retrieved, but it doesn't add any new semantic details about the parameter format or constraints. Since the schema already covers the parameter, this is a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'wallet transaction history' with specific detail about categorization (swaps, transfers, etc.). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like obol_wallet_overview or obol_wallet_portfolio by focusing on the transaction history with categorization. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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 fetching wallet transaction history, which gives some context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention any alternatives (e.g., obol_wallet_pnl for profit/loss, obol_wallet_risk for risk). The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving the agent to infer based on the purpose.

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