spraay_analytics_txhistory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by noting the cost ($0.003 USDC). However, it lacks details on behavior beyond cost, such as rate limits, data freshness, or behavior for invalid addresses. The description does not contradict annotations, so no contradiction flag.

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 concise sentences: first explains the function and output, second mentions cost. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff. The description is front-loaded with the core action.

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, the description does not need to elaborate on return values. It covers the core purpose, scope (Base chain), and cost. Minor gaps exist (e.g., error handling, but those are acceptable for a simple read-only tool). The description is largely complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter documented (address pattern, limit default/max). The description adds no additional insight into parameter meaning or usage beyond what the schema already provides, earning the 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 the tool's function: 'Get decoded transaction history for any address on Base.' It specifies the returned data types (transaction types, values, timestamps, decoded method calls) and includes cost. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spraay_analytics_wallet which likely focus on portfolio, not transaction history.

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 the use case ('transaction history for any address on Base') but does not explicitly guide when to use versus alternatives or mention exclusions. Given the large set of sibling tools, more explicit differentiation would be helpful, but the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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