getERC20Transfers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully covers the safety profile. The description adds the wallet-address scoping constraint but does not disclose return format, pagination, or rate limits. Given the strong annotation support, the description provides acceptable but not rich behavioral context, aligning with a baseline score of 3.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundant context. It front-loads the core behavior ('Get ERC20 transfers') and immediately follows with the key scope ('for a specific wallet address'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise 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 simplicity, the annotations cover safety, and the schema covers all required parameters (including the chain constraint via const 'somnia'), the description needs only to state what is returned and for whom. It does that clearly. A note on return format (e.g., list of transfer objects) would slightly improve completeness, but the description is adequate for correct invocation.

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 67%, with authToken and walletAddress already well-described. The description essentially repeats the walletAddress schema text ('for a specific wallet address') without adding new meaning. It does not explain chainName (though its const value 'somnia' is self-explanatory) or authToken, and it fails to compensate for the missing chainName description. Since coverage is not high and the description adds no parameter insights, a score of 2 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('ERC20 transfers'), and a clear scope ('for a specific wallet address'), making it immediately obvious what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getERC20Balance and getERC721Transfers by specifying both the asset type and the event type, so an agent can differentiate it from alternatives.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to retrieve ERC20 transfer events for a given wallet. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use getERC721Transfers for NFTs), but the sibling list and the precise wording give enough context for an agent to infer the correct use case. A slight deduction for not naming alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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