List Pi wallet payment history

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavior: pagination mechanics (pass next_cursor back as cursor), the scope of record types, and that it reads public ledger data only. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then use cases, then pagination/scope details. Every sentence adds necessary context with no redundancy or fluff.

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 an output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, pagination, record types, and data scope. It is sufficient for a competent agent to select and invoke the tool correctly; the output schema handles 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?

The schema already covers all parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the pagination cursor usage and confirming the default ordering ('newest first'), which directly supports correct parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 lists payments sent to or from a Pi wallet address, newest first, and enumerates the covered transaction types (payments, account creations, path payments, account merges). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_wallet_balance and query_transaction.

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 explicitly says 'Call this to answer questions about an address's transaction history' and gives concrete examples (whether a payment arrived, who funded an account, what it sent). This provides strong positive guidance, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it.

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