Venice x402 Transaction History

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the auth requirement (SIWX-only, rejects API key) and the wallet-matching constraint, which are critical behavioral traits. It doesn't detail pagination, ordering semantics, or return format traits, but for a read-only list operation the disclosed constraints are substantial and useful.

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?

Three compact sentences, all earning their place: purpose, auth constraint, and wallet-matching rule. No filler, no repetition of schema content. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 an auth-gated list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral details: verb, resource, auth requirement, and wallet validation constraint. It's slightly incomplete not describing pagination/ordering for 'recent' transactions, but it's adequate given the tool's relative simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description names the key parameter concept (wallet in path must match SIWX-authenticated wallet) but doesn't document the `limit` parameter's semantics or format. It adds some value by clarifying the wallet constraint, but `limit` is left undocumented at the semantic level.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (list), the resource (x402 top-up + debit transactions), and the scope (for a wallet, recent). It distinguishes itself well from sibling tools like venice_x402_balance (balance) and venice_x402_top_up_info (top-up info), so the purpose is specific and differentiated.

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?

Explicitly states auth requirement (X-Sign-In-With-X / VENICE_SIWX_TOKEN), explicitly excludes API key auth, and states the path-wallet-must-match-authenticated-wallet constraint. This gives clear when-to-use and preconditions. It implicitly distinguishes from other venice tools by its exclusive SIWX auth model, which is a strong usage signal.

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