Src20 Transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior. It discloses the transaction types, ordering (newest first), filterable parameters, and output fields (creator, destination, amt, tick, stamp number, block_time). It omits pagination semantics and error handling, but provides solid transparency for a read-only list tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: what it returns, ordering, filters, and row contents. Efficient and well-structured.

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 an output schema exists, the return format is covered. The description covers the core behavior and filters. It does not mention pagination defaults (page/limit) or behavior when no results, but those are minor for a filtered list tool. Overall, complete enough for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of tick, op, and block_index as filters, and mentions output fields. It does not elaborate on page/limit (though these are common) or the exact allowed values for op (though the description lists them). Partial compensation, not exhaustive.

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 returns valid SRC-20 transactions (DEPLOY/MINT/TRANSFER) newest first, and lists filterable fields. It is specific and not a tautology, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like src20_tx or search_src20, so it falls short of a 5.

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: listing and filtering transactions. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over siblings (e.g., src20_tx for a single transaction) or when not to use it. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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