erc20_transfers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers unusually rich context: ordering (newest first), cap (up to 50), data window (last ~12000 blocks, fewer on busy tokens), cheap-but-partial caveat, cost ($0.004 USDC), and p99 latency (12000ms). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and none are available from the schema.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose before scoping, cost, and latency. Every sentence carries information (range limitation, cost, p99), though the volume of trailing clauses is slightly heavy for one sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming the returned fields (tx, time, from, to, amount) and how the searched range is reported. All 4 params are documented and the read-only, range-limited nature is clear, making it essentially complete for a query tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: 'amount in token units' clarifies the value scale and the holder parameter is explained as filtering 'from or to one wallet'. That extra semantics on top of full schema coverage justifies the bump.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource ('ERC-20 Transfer History — Recent Transfer events of an ERC-20 token') and even enumerates the returned fields. It is unmistakably distinct from a metadata tool like erc20_info, but it never names a sibling to route the agent explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It offers implied usage context ('Use for quick wallet or token activity checks') and flags a limitation ('not a full history'), which helps scope the decision. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not condition, leaving the agent to infer the boundary against tools like evm_tx or token_flows.

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