getTopicTransactionLogs

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get logs' aligns with that. No additional behavioral details are given (e.g., pagination, return format, or authorization constraints), but the annotation lowers the burden of disclosure.

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, tightly worded sentence that leads with the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately sized 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?

The tool has no output schema and only a readOnly annotation, so the description must carry more contextual weight. It fails to mention that chainName is fixed to 'somnia', that authToken is required, or any details about the logs returned. The description is minimally viable but incomplete for a tool in a large family of similar tools.

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 only 33% (only topicHash has a description). The description reinforces topicHash as the filter but does not explain authToken or chainName. chainName has a const in the schema, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage overall.

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 action ('Get logs') and the resource ('transactions matching the provided topic'). The topic qualifier differentiates it from generic log tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It is specific and understandable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools such as getTransactionLogs or getTransactionLogsForAddress. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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