getTransactionLogsForAddress

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not disclose return format, pagination, or the nature of the logs, and its wording introduces confusion about whether the address is a contract or a transaction originator.

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 sentence with no fluff, making it concise and front-loaded. However, the awkward phrasing could be improved without adding length, so it is not perfect.

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 lack of an output schema and minimal annotations, the description is insufficiently informative. It fails to clarify what logs are returned, how the address is interpreted, or any prerequisites or edge cases, making it incomplete for a 3-parameter 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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate for undocumented authToken and chainName, but it does not. The phrase 'provided address' loosely maps to contractAddress but is not explicit, and the other parameters remain unexplained.

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 states a verb ('Get') and a resource ('logs for transaction'), but the phrase 'created by the provided address' is ambiguous and conflicts with the schema's contractAddress. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like getTransactionLogs or getTopicTransactionLogs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist, but no exclusions or contextual triggers are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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