t2000_history

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read-only operation and describes the output (transaction digest link). However, it does not mention potential costs, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences covering purpose, output details, and a CLI reference. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 a single parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what activity is shown and that entries contain a digest link. Missing details like ordering (recent first) are implicit. A brief note on return format would make it perfect.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a well-described 'limit' parameter (type number, default 20). The description adds no additional information about parameters beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'View recent on-chain activity' and specifies the types (sends, swaps, MPP payments). It distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools by focusing on viewing history, but could more explicitly differentiate from other view tools like t2000_balance.

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 for viewing transaction history but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The CLI mirror hint ('t2 history') suggests familiarity but lacks direct comparison with siblings.

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