get_wallet_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or read-only nature. It only says 'retrieves transaction history' but does not mention the cursor/limit parameters, result ordering, or that it is a read-only operation. This lack of transparency could confuse an agent.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise, but could be slightly improved by incorporating key parameter context without becoming verbose.

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 there are 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits important context such as pagination behavior, default ordering, and the structure of returned data. A more complete description would help an agent use this tool effectively.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema; it does not clarify the meaning of 'transaction history' or explain how cursor/limit function. Thus, it meets the baseline without value add.

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 transaction history for a specific wallet. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_wallet_balance or get_wallet_details. However, it could be more precise about the scope (e.g., 'for a given wallet').

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_transaction (single transaction) or get_wallet_balance. The description does not mention use cases or when not to use it.

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