get_transaction_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination (cursor) and filtering, but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, idempotency, or data freshness. For a read-only query tool, it is adequate but could add more behavioral context.

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?

Two succinct paragraphs: first states purpose and return values, second lists filters. Front-loaded with key information, every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague language.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, return fields, pagination, and available filters. It could mention default ordering or a note about data latency, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 each parameter having clear descriptions. The tool description adds high-level context (e.g., 'Filter by time range, origin/destination chain') but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 past Relay bridge and swap transactions for a wallet address, listing returned fields and explicit filtering capabilities. It distinguishes from siblings like get_transaction_status by focusing on a historical list vs. a single transaction status.

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 clear context for when to use (get transaction history) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternatives like get_transaction_status. The intended use is implied but not contrasted with sibling tools.

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