heliusTransaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns 'parsed transactions' but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The agent lacks critical information about network calls and potential mutability, which is essential for safe invocation.

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 concise with two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a usage hint. While it is not verbose, it is too minimal for a complex tool and lacks depth, bordering on under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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's complexity (18 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not describe return values, pagination, error handling, or how to use the various optional parameters. The agent has insufficient information to correctly construct a valid request.

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 18 parameters with only 17% coverage (only _model, _feedback, _feedbackTool have descriptions). The description does not explain any parameters, such as the critical 'action' enum or optional filters like 'address', 'signature', 'limit', etc. For a tool with many parameters, the description must compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, but it entirely fails to do so.

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 states 'Parsed transactions and wallet transaction history' which clearly identifies the tool's scope as transaction-related. The phrase 'not raw account state' hints at differentiation from sibling tools like heliusAccount. However, it could be more specific by listing the actions (parseTransactions, getTransactionHistory, getTransfersByAddress) that are defined in the schema.

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 says 'Use for activity analysis, not raw account state.' This provides a general guideline on when to use the tool (activity analysis) and hints at when not to use it (raw account state). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or provide clear scenarios for each action, leaving the agent to infer from sibling tool names.

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