get_wallet_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool queries activity and returns formatted text or error messages, but lacks critical details like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, pagination, or what constitutes 'activity' versus transactions. The return format description is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value: the opening defines scope, parameter details provide crucial constraints, and return information clarifies output format. No wasted words.

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 (querying blockchain activity), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the parameter well and describes the return format, but lacks behavioral context like rate limits, error conditions beyond generic 'error message', and differentiation from sibling tools. The return format description helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It provides clear semantics for the single parameter: wallet_address must be a valid EVM-compatible address with examples and supported chains listed. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 purpose with specific verb ('Query') and resource ('activity of a specified wallet address on supported EVM blockchains'). It distinguishes from sibling tools get_wallet_balance and get_wallet_transactions by focusing on 'activity' rather than balance or transactions specifically.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_wallet_balance, get_wallet_transactions). It mentions supported EVM blockchains but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions for this activity query tool.

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