Indexer: List transfers for wallet or token (v1)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that results are enriched with VNS names and token symbols, but does not disclose other behaviors like rate limits or authentication. The description complements annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose and parameters, the second enriches with output details and use cases.

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 (6 parameters, optional pagination, output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter usage, enrichment, and use cases. It implies mutual exclusivity of address and tokenAddress but does not explicitly state it, leaving a minor gap. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds valuable context beyond the schema, such as that address accepts VNS names and tokenAddress accepts symbols. This helps the agent understand valid inputs without extra inference.

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 it queries transfer events using the VeWorld Indexer, lists parameters and accepted formats, and specifies use cases like 'wallet transfers' and 'token movements'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getTransfersFrom and getTransfersTo, which serve similar purposes.

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 guidance on when to use the tool ('wallet transfers', 'token movements', 'activity for contract/wallet') and explains how to use it (providing either address or tokenAddress). It does not include exclusions or mention alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for basic usage.

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