Get Wallet Transactions

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

Annotations already indicate it's read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context by noting it requires an API key and is a PRO feature, which are useful beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the core purpose and requirement front-loaded. Every word adds value without fluff.

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 presence of a full output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, scope (both transfer types), and access requirements. No gaps remain for an agent to misunderstand.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear definitions for 'address' and 'limit'. The tool description does not add additional parameter context beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states it retrieves recent transactions for a wallet address, specifying it includes both PLS transfers and token transfers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-wallet-balances or get-wallet-swaps.

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 implies usage for fetching transaction history but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit context on when to choose this tool over similar ones like get-token-history.

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