get_token_transfers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies read-only, but it omits auth requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema, and return format. The API endpoint reference adds minor transparency but not enough behavioral context.

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 sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the API endpoint reference is informative without being verbose.

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?

The schema is rich and covers parameter invocation, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally explain return values or pagination behavior. It does not, leaving a gap for an agent that needs to understand what 'recent transfers' returns.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent transfers of a fungible token'), and explicitly uses 'fungible' to distinguish from the sibling tool get_nft_transfers. The tool's scope is immediately clear.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The description implies it retrieves token transfers, but it does not say when to choose this over related tools like get_account_transactions or get_token_holders.

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