liquid_list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the ordering (newest first) and the fields returned, but does not mention whether pagination is supported, any rate limits, or that this is a read-only operation. The 'List' verb implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is adequate but not rich in detail.

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, well-structured sentence. It is front-loaded with the action ('List') and resource, and every word provides useful information without redundancy. There is no waste.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives a clear picture of what the tool does and the fields returned. It lacks any mention of response structure or potential limitations, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete. A slightly higher score would require explicit behavior like pagination or auth requirements.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema provides no meaningful details. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (txid, type, fee, block height, timestamp) and the ordering, effectively compensating for the lack of schema. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, which is met.

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's function: 'List the wallet transaction history (newest first): txid, type, fee, block height and timestamp.' It specifies the verb (List), resource (wallet transaction history), ordering (newest first), and included fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like liquid_get_balance or liquid_send_btc.

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 clear context: this tool is for retrieving transaction history. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous. Since it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative comparisons, a score of 4 is appropriate rather than 5.

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