get_wallet_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states basic functionality (getting history with pagination) but fails to disclose critical traits like read-only nature, error handling (e.g., invalid wallet_id), pagination mechanics (cursor usage, maximum limit), or ordering of transactions.

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 extremely concise, with just two sentences (10 words) that front-load the key information: what the tool does and that it supports pagination. No words are wasted, and the structure is efficient.

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 3 parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain cursor-based pagination, default sorting, or any constraints (e.g., maximum limit). While the output schema may cover return values, the description should provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly, which it fails to do.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The tool description adds only minimal context ('pagination support' hints at limit/cursor) but does not explain wallet_id, limit, or cursor syntax or behavior. Much more detail is needed to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool gets transaction history for a wallet, with pagination support. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('transaction history for a wallet'), and distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on users and wallets, not transactions.

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 context (fetching history with pagination) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Since there are no other transaction-related tools, the need for differentiation is low, but the lack of explicit usage direction reduces the score.

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