get_recent_signatures

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the return structure ({address, count, signatures}) and fields, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose details like ordering (descending?), default limit behavior, error handling for invalid addresses, or rate limits.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a clear Args/Returns section. Every sentence provides necessary information with no redundancy. The structure makes it easy for an AI to scan.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, parameter details, and return format adequately. It is slightly incomplete in not specifying sort order or edge cases, but overall sufficient.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that 'address' is a Base58-encoded account/wallet address and 'limit' is the max number (1-100, default 10). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema types.

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 'List the most recent transaction signatures touching an account,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_account_info, get_epoch_info, and get_transaction, none of which focus on listing signatures.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_transaction for a specific transaction). The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts beyond the basic function.

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