List Pi wallet payment history

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds crucial behavioral details beyond annotations: pagination mechanics (next_cursor/cursor), the not-found vs empty-list distinction, the testnet vs mainnet separation including the fact that the same address can hold different balances on each, and the monetary value warning for testnet. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is somewhat lengthy at multiple sentences. While every sentence adds value, some could be more concise (e.g., the testnet monetary warning and ledger separation are important but add extra length). Still, it avoids redundancy and is well-organized.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, output schema present), the description is highly complete. It covers all key aspects: what results contain (transaction types, network field), edge cases (unfunded address error vs empty page), pagination handling, and cross-chain context. The output schema exists, so the description rightly focuses on behavioral semantics rather than return value details.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 is expected. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the pagination pattern (how to use cursor and next_cursor), interpreting the address parameter with a real usage warning about format vs intended address, and clarifying the order default behavior in context of the tool's purpose. Every parameter is enriched with practical usage context.

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 explicitly states the tool lists payments sent to or from a Pi wallet address, newest first, and covers specific transaction types (payments, account creations, path payments, account merges). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_wallet_balance by focusing on transaction history rather than balances, and from query_transaction by addressing account-level history rather than individual transaction lookups.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this to answer questions about an address's transaction history — whether a payment arrived, who funded an account, or what it recently sent.' It also implicitly excludes balance queries (handled by get_wallet_balance) and single-transaction lookups (query_transaction). Additionally, it warns about the not-found error for unfunded addresses, explaining how to interpret results correctly.

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