Transaction history : Retrieve list of the transactions related to the specified Solana wallet address (received and sent funds with dates)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what's retrieved ('received and sent funds with dates'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what's implied by the parameter description. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it repeats the title verbatim without adding extra value, slightly reducing its effectiveness, but it remains appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving transaction history), lack of output schema, and rich annotations (readOnlyHint), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers what the tool does but doesn't address return format, error handling, or prerequisites, leaving gaps for the agent to infer.

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%, with the single parameter 'walletAddress' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format requirements or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_transaction_state' (which might retrieve a single transaction) or 'get_wallet_info' (which might provide wallet metadata rather than transaction history), leaving the agent with no explicit usage context.

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