get_transaction_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is retrieved ('executions, queued transactions, approvals, cancellations, spend policy updates, and operator changes') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. It adds some context about filtering but is incomplete for a read operation with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific details and usage guidance in the second. Both sentences are essential—no wasted words—making it 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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what data is retrieved and filtering options, but lacks details on return format, error cases, or prerequisites. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness for a historical query tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by 'event type or block range', which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Retrieve') and resource ('wallet's recent on-chain transaction history from event logs'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on historical transaction data rather than current operations (like check_spend_limit) or wallet management (like deploy_wallet).

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 provides clear context for usage ('Filter by event type or block range for targeted queries'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_wallet_info or when not to use it. It implies usage for historical queries without naming specific sibling alternatives.

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