t2000_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is for viewing activity and includes a digest for Suiscan, but does not disclose if it requires authentication, if it's purely read-only, or any rate limits or pagination behavior.

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 purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and key return hint (digest). It could mention ordering or additional fields, but is largely complete for the complexity level.

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 single parameter `limit` is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context about the output including transaction digests but does not add semantics beyond the schema for the parameter.

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 explicitly states the tool views recent on-chain activity, lists included transaction types (sends, swaps, MPP payments), and differentiates from sibling action tools like t2000_send and t2000_swap by being a read-only history viewer.

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 mentions it mirrors `t2 history`, implying it replaces a CLI command, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools are clearly for specific actions, but no direct guidance is provided.

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