Parsed Transactions & History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of action-specific behavior, pagination via paginationToken, detail-level effects, scan cost for scanTransactionHistory, or rate limits. A statement that scanning can be expensive or truncated by maxScannedTransactions would have been valuable context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource, zero filler — good density and no repetition of annotations. But the brevity is under-specification rather than discipline for a 26-parameter tool with four actions; the second sentence is the only thing carrying operational value.

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 tool with 26 parameters, four actions, low schema coverage, and no output schema, a two-sentence description leaves an agent without enough to invoke it correctly. There is no explanation of which arguments belong to which action, what the returned parsed transaction shape contains, or how pagination is continued. This is materially inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 only 12% across 26 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it carries none. Terms like mode, detail, returnShape, tokenAccounts, transactionDetails, sortOrder, and maxScannedTransactions are entirely opaque from both schema and description. Not one parameter or action is explained.

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 names the resource (parsed transactions, wallet transaction history) and the broad use case (activity analysis), which separates it from account-state siblings. However, it never mentions the four actions the enum exposes (parseTransactions, getTransactionHistory, scanTransactionHistory, getTransfersByAddress), so an agent cannot tell from the description which mode of the tool it is selecting. The purpose is implied rather than stated at the granularity the schema demands.

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?

"Use for activity analysis, not raw account state" gives one explicit exclusion and implicitly routes account-state queries to heliusAccount/heliusChain. What is missing is any guidance among the four actions and when each applies, which is the primary selection decision an agent faces here. The negative guidance is real but shallow.

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