get_tx_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: results are newest-first and pagination is cursor-based via next_cursor/after_txid. It also warns that a backend is required. No contradiction 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 compact: a one-line purpose, a pagination note, and a flat Args list. It avoids irrelevant detail, though 'Needs a backend' is terse and could be slightly clearer.

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?

All invocation-critical details are present: required address, maximum limit, cursor paging, and network override, while the output schema covers return shape. The vague 'backend' prerequisite and lack of valid network values keep it from being fully self-contained.

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 fully compensates by explaining all four arguments: address to look up, limit up to 100, after_txid as a continuation cursor, and network as a server override. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get an address's transaction history') and adds ordering ('newest first'), making the result unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_transaction or get_utxos, but the history focus is clear enough.

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 operational guidance such as cursor pagination and the backend requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_balance or get_transaction. Usage context is implied by the wording rather than stated with exclusions or fallback instructions.

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