market_get_wallet_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only implies a read-only operation ('Get') without mentioning pagination, date range defaults, supported transaction types, or what the response contains. It does not reveal any important behavioral constraints or side effects, making this insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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, and direct sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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?

Despite having a complete parameter schema, the description lacks essential context for an 8-parameter tool with no output schema. It does not mention return format, pagination behavior, or the role of connectionId. The absence of sibling differentiation and usage guidance makes this description incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema. It does not explain the meaning of 'connectionId' or the filtering options, but the schema handles that adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('transaction history for a wallet address'). It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from chain-specific transaction history tools like aptos_get_account_transactions or bitcoin_get_transaction_history, which appear in the sibling list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where a different tool might be more appropriate. Since there are many sibling tools for transaction history (e.g., xrp_get_transaction_history, ton_get_transaction_history), this is a clear gap.

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