getWalletTransactionSummary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as response format, pagination, summary scope (e.g., time range, transaction count), or authentication requirements. No contradictions, but no extra value.

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 that gets straight to the point. No filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail. Excellent size for the content provided.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not explain what the summary contains (e.g., totals, ranges). It also omits required parameter context (authToken, chainName constraint) and provides no guidance on expected behavior. Given a 3-parameter tool and minimal structured metadata, the description is too thin to be complete.

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 walletAddress has a description). The tool description reiterates wallet address but says nothing about chainName (with const 'somnia') or authToken, which are required but undocumented. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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') and resource ('summary of transactions') with a clear scope ('for a specific wallet address'). It implies a distinction from sibling transaction-list tools via 'summary', but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 word 'summary' implies the tool is for aggregated or high-level transaction data rather than full raw lists, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions. Usage context is only inferred.

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