get_recent_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), whether results are sorted (e.g., most recent first), any pagination beyond the limit parameter, or potential rate limits. The description lacks sufficient transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Single sentence, very concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, it sacrifices some useful context (like ordering or return format) for brevity. Still, it is efficient given the simplicity of the tool.

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?

No output schema is provided. The tool returns transaction signatures, but the description does not specify the format or whether additional details are included. For a simple retrieval tool with well-documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate but could be more complete about return structure.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (address, limit, network). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, such as default values or behavior of the 'limit' parameter (though schema mentions default 10). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get recent transaction signatures for a Solana address' clearly states the specific verb ('Get'), resource ('recent transaction signatures'), and context ('for a Solana address'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_transaction' (single transaction) and 'get_account_info' (account details).

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 implies usage for retrieving recent transactions for an address but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'get_transaction' for individual transactions or other list tools. No exclusions or context on when not to use it.

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