Transaction History

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds context by noting 'real transactions' (not simulated) and 'No PIN required' (auth requirement). However, it omits details about pagination (limit/offset), whether an api_key is needed, ordering, or error behavior, leaving gaps in what the agent should expect.

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 verb and purpose, lists the return fields, and includes a security note. It is efficient and not overlong, though it could be expanded slightly to cover parameters without becoming verbose.

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 list tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameters and return format. It lists the fields but does not clarify limit/offset semantics or the role of api_key, nor does it specify the 'recent' time window. This leaves critical operational details missing, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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% and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters (limit, offset, api_key). It does not clarify their purpose, formats, or defaults, leaving the agent to guess. The description's only hint is 'No PIN required', which is unrelated to the api_key parameter, so it fails 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('recent real transactions for the linked wallet'), and enumerates the fields returned (service, provider, amount, status, tx hash). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like check_balance, which concerns balance, 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 by describing the action ('List recent real transactions') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., check_balance) or mention any exclusions. The 'No PIN required' note gives a small usage hint but lacks a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing.

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