get_account_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the return fields (tx hash, from, to, value, time, status), but says nothing about ordering, pagination/rate-limit behavior, whether results are cached, or any required API key/network prerequisites for the KaiaScan API.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead, and the parenthetical return-field list is compact. Slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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 read tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields is helpful and largely compensates. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the absence of ordering/pagination behavior and any auth or rate-limit context leaves it only minimally complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so page, limit, address, and network are all already documented in the schema with defaults and max values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Get list of transactions for an account') and adds the data source (KaiaScan API) plus the returned fields, so it is clearly distinguishable from get_transaction (single tx) and get_token_transfers. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, so it does not reach a 5.

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 per-account scoping implies the use case (fetch an account's transaction history), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_transaction or get_transaction_receipt instead, and no note about paginating large histories. Usage is only implied.

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