Venice x402 Transaction History

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: SIWX-only authentication, API keys are rejected, and the path wallet must match the SIWX-authenticated wallet. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or result shape, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the hard constraint. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, auth model, and the wallet-matching rule. Missing only secondary details like ordering, default limit behavior, and pagination, which are minor for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It partially compensates by explaining that the wallet is EVM or Solana (clarifying the address formats) and that it must match the authenticated wallet, but the limit parameter (1-100) and its effect on result size are never mentioned.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and a precisely scoped resource (recent x402 top-up + debit transactions) qualified by wallet type (EVM or Solana). This cleanly separates it from sibling x402 tools like venice_x402_balance and venice_x402_top_up_info without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource (fetch transaction history for a wallet), and the auth precondition narrows the audience, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of / in addition to' routing against venice_x402_balance or venice_billing_usage_history. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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