List account activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious operational requirement — that the same filters must be re-sent alongside each cursor — which the schema's cursor field ('next_cursor from the previous page') does not state. It stops short of describing page-size defaults, ordering behavior, 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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the resource and its scope first, the pagination rule second. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the type taxonomy and cursor protocol. But for a 10-parameter tool with time-range, ordering, event/condition-id filters and a paging limit, the description omits defaults and ordering semantics, leaving several parameters to the schema alone.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only a small amount of meaning beyond it: the activity-type taxonomy in prose and the filter-consistency rule for cursor paging. It says nothing about start/end, oldest_first, event_ids, condition_ids, or the 200-row limit.

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 the resource concretely (a wallet's on-chain activity) and enumerates the activity classes it returns — trades, splits, merges, redemptions, rewards, rebates, plus optional deposits/withdrawals. That distinguishes it from narrow siblings like list_trades or list_combo_activity, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'optionally deposits and withdrawals' hints that funding events are opt-in via filtering, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus list_trades or list_combo_activity. The one clear directive is pagination ('Re-send the same filters with each cursor'), which is a usage rule, not tool selection guidance.

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