Venice x402 Transaction History

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (list transactions), requires specific auth (SIWX), and enforces wallet-matching. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action. No unnecessary words, each sentence adds value: what it does, auth constraint, wallet matching constraint.

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 simplicity, the description covers purpose and auth. However, it is missing details about the 'limit' parameter (e.g., defaults, effect) and does not describe the output format. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 compensate. It mentions 'wallet' in the context of authentication but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or its effect. The agent gains no additional meaning beyond the schema's type and regex pattern.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'recent x402 top-up + debit transactions for a wallet'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like venice_x402_balance and venice_x402_top_up_info by focusing on transaction history.

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 explicitly states the authentication requirement: 'SIWX-ONLY: rejects API key, requires X-Sign-In-With-X (VENICE_SIWX_TOKEN)'. It also gives a constraint on wallet matching. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives if SIWX is not available.

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