get_transactions_of_address

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

Without annotations, the description transparently describes the output format (txid, date/time, amount in satoshis), chronological ordering, string representation, and address format acceptance. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but as a read-only history tool, the behavioral disclosure is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the main purpose, then listing output fields, followed by usage tips, accepted formats, and use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it returns, how it orders results, acceptable inputs, and related tools. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining that the address parameter accepts any Bitcoin address format (Legacy, SegWit, Bech32), which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 'get the complete transaction history of a Bitcoin address' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_info_about_address and get_bitcoin_transaction_infos by focusing on full history and mentioning related tools.

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?

It explicitly provides use cases (auditing, tracking payments, verifying, investigating) and suggests when to use alternative tools (get_bitcoin_transaction_infos or get_transaction_input_output) for further details, offering clear guidance on when to invoke this tool.

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