get_erc20_transfers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure but only restates the tool's function without elaborating on return format, pagination, default block-range behavior, or network/performance implications. The schema hints at defaults (e.g., network defaults to 'bsc'), but the description itself adds no 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?

At five words, the description is extremely efficient, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no filler. While it is arguably under-specified for a 7-parameter tool, from a pure conciseness standpoint it is clean and well-structured.

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 the tool's 7 parameters, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, this 5-word description is insufficient for the agent to fully anticipate behavior (e.g., what events are returned, or how missing block-range filters behave). The description does not compensate for these gaps, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema includes descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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?

The description states a clear action ('Get') and a specific resource ('ERC20 token transfer events'), communicating the tool's core function concisely. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from related sibling tools like get_approval_events or get_contract_logs, leaving the differentiation implicit.

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 guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_contract_logs, get_logs_by_topic, or get_approval_events. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended use cases, so the agent must infer applicability from context alone.

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