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 does disclose the read-only nature via 'View' and includes transaction digest URLs, but it does not specify whose activity is returned (e.g., the current account/address) or any potential limitations such as 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes a useful URL for digests and the CLI equivalence without any extraneous content.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, transaction types, and the digest format. The only minor gap is not specifying the scope of the activity (which account/address), but this may be inferred from the tool's 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 schema already describes the single 'limit' parameter with 100% coverage, including its default value. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('View') and resource ('recent on-chain activity'), with examples of transaction types (sends, swaps, x402 payments). This clearly differentiates it from action-oriented sibling tools like t2000_swap and t2000_send.

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 clearly indicates this is for viewing history, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The mention 'Mirrors `t2 history`' provides a CLI reference but no direct comparison to siblings.

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