List transactions

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

With annotations already declaring read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, the description adds useful context about returned rows: transaction kinds, counterparty, memo handling, cashlink tag normalization, and invoice references. It reinforces safety ("never signs, never sends") but does not cover pagination behavior or the full row shape.

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 the tool's purpose, followed by efficient detail about read-only behavior and return-row semantics. The memo and cashlink details earn their place because they clarify non-obvious return content.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values; it does so for kind, counterparty, and memo, but omits amount, timestamp, status, and pagination details. Given fully documented parameters and safety annotations, it is mostly complete but leaves some return-shape gaps.

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 limit, since, until, and address are already documented. The description only reinforces that address is a Nimiq address and that results are newest first; it adds no parameter syntax or filtering details beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: "List transactions for a Nimiq address," plus ordering ("newest first") and the classified nature of the rows. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_statement or list_invoices, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling alternative guidance. It only notes read-only behavior and ordering, leaving the agent to infer that this is for transaction history rather than statements, invoices, or staking summaries.

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