litecoin_get_transaction_history

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

There are no annotations to communicate safety or side effects, so the description must carry the full burden. 'Get transaction history' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination defaults, ordering, inclusion of pending/unconfirmed transactions, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and does not add context beyond the core purpose.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it lacks detail; this prevents a score of 5 but is not as sparse as merely repeating the tool name.

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 low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is adequate to understand the core function. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps around expected return structure and any specific behavior, making it a minimum-viable description rather than fully 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%—all three parameters have clear descriptions (address, limit, offset). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but with full schema coverage, the baseline is 3. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 'Get transaction history for a Litecoin address' clearly states the action (get), resource (transaction history), and scope (Litecoin address). It distinguishes this from siblings like bitcoin_get_transaction_history or xrp_get_transaction_history by explicitly naming Litecoin.

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 use case is implied—use when you need transaction history for a Litecoin address—but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It merely states the function without context.

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