list_txs_by_contract

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

The description mentions 'indexed transactions', which is a behavioral trait indicating that only transactions that have been indexed are returned. However, it does not disclose other important aspects like whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, or how pagination behaves (e.g., what happens at the end of the list). Annotations are absent, so the description partially compensates but remains incomplete.

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 single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without extraneous text.

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 no output schema and many sibling tools, the description lacks detail on return format, error cases, or typical usage scenarios. It is adequate for a simple list operation but could provide more context to assist the agent in understanding the scope and limitations.

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 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The description adds 'with pagination' which is already implied by the limit and offset parameters. No additional meaning is provided beyond what the schema already offers.

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 action (list), the object (indexed transactions), the filter (called a contract), and the feature (pagination). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_txs_by_sender or list_txs_for_block by specifying the 'by contract' context.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., list_txs_by_sender, get_transaction, etc.), the agent is left without context on when this tool is appropriate or preferred.

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