History

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses ordering (newest first) and the pagination mechanism, but omits whether this is strictly read-only (implied), rate-limit behavior, the default page size of 10, and what happens when `before` points to an unknown block. Adequate but incomplete for a node-backed query.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then the paging rule. Nothing is wasted and no sentence is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the agent is left guessing the shape of returned entries (hashes, amounts, counterparties) and whether results are limited to confirmed blocks. For a 3-parameter listing tool this is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 67%: `before` and `account` are already documented in the schema, while `count` has only type/default/bounds. The description reinforces the paging semantics of `before` as a block hash but adds no new format or validation meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States the resource precisely ('an account's latest sends and receives') and its ordering ('newest first'), which is more than a restatement of the name 'History'. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like nano_balance or nano_receivable, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can distinguish a transaction listing from a balance or receivable lookup.

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 gives one conditional usage rule — use `before` to page back — which is genuinely actionable. However, it never says when to choose this tool over nano_account_info or nano_receivable, nor any precondition (e.g., account must exist). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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