get_wallet_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits: it's a query/read operation (implied by 'query'), mentions supported blockchains and address formats, and specifies the return format. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination beyond the limit parameter.

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 appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines scope, and subsequent lines detail parameters and output without redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, parameters, and return format. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential errors, rate limits, or how it differs from sibling tools, which would help an agent use it correctly in context.

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 meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains wallet_address with examples for EVM and Solana chains and clarifies limit as a maximum with a default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter 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 ('transactions of a specified wallet address'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the exact data returned (transactions vs. activity or balance). It explicitly mentions supported blockchains (EVM and Solana), providing clear scope.

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 implies usage by specifying the tool queries transactions, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. siblings like get_wallet_activity or get_wallet_balance. It provides some context with supported blockchains but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions.

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