get_transfer_history

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's behavioral disclosure is not critical. The description does add some behavioral context by specifying limit constraints (max 50, default 20) and timestamp units (milliseconds), but does not discuss pagination behavior or output details. This provides moderate added value beyond the 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?

The description is a focused docstring with a one-line summary followed by parameter definitions. Each parameter gets one concise line. However, the formatting as code-style Args could be more readable for an agent. It is efficient but slightly verbose due to the parameter enumeration.

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 has 7 optional parameters, an output schema, and readOnlyHint, the description covers parameter semantics well. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return value explanation is acceptable. However, it does not mention pagination behavior beyond cursor/limit. Overall sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description bears full responsibility for parameter semantics. It lists all 7 parameters with brief type/format hints (e.g., 'UUID of transfer', 'Coin name', 'Transfer status - SUCCESS, PENDING, FAILED', 'Start timestamp in milliseconds'). While not exhaustive, it adds essential meaning that the schema lacks. A score of 5 would require more detailed formats or examples.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource phrase 'Query internal transfer records', which states the tool's function. The parameter list further specifies what can be filtered. However, the description does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'internal_transfer' or 'get_coin_balance', so it lacks full distinctiveness.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. The agent would have to infer from context.

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