apiosk_get_wallet_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'recent', but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering details, or any wallet-state constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action and resource, and it avoids repeating schema or annotation details.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to clarify scope and usage, which it largely does. The main omission is pagination parameter semantics, but page and limit are conventional optional fields and their names are reasonably self-explanatory.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It clarifies wallet_id scope and implies recency, but it says nothing about page or limit semantics, pagination defaults, or how filtering/ordering works. This is a meaningful gap for a low-coverage schema.

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 specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('recent transactions and activity'), and a bounded scope ('one managed wallet'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like apiosk_list_wallets or apiosk_show_wallet_funding.

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 phrase 'for one managed wallet' implies this is for activity on a single wallet, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives such as apiosk_show_wallet_funding or apiosk_list_wallets. No exclusionary or alternative-usage hints are provided.

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