Wise

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive. Description adds that calling with no args returns a link, and with token sets session. It explains the non-expiring vs session behavior, complementing 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?

Three sentences, each adding value: purpose, best practice, and alternative usage. Could be slightly more concise but front-loads key info.

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 a simple auth tool with no output schema, the description covers both login paths, token usage, and outcome (link). Complete enough for an agent to use 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?

Schema has one optional parameter 'token' with no description. The description explains that it is a JWT token for paste, or omitted to get a link, adding essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool is for authentication, with verb 'log in' and resource 'access token'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' or 'report_bug' by being the only authentication tool.

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 clear guidance on two usage scenarios: permanent config-based login and session-only token paste. It suggests the best practice (config) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparison with siblings.

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

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

The description provides detailed behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the output format for two scenarios (authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, or connect_url when missing). This is informative for the agent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then clarifying the two states. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively explains the return values and states. It is complete for the tool's 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?

There are no parameters, so description cannot add parameter meaning. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's output behavior.

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 tool returns connection status and URLs, and explains the two possible states (all connected vs missing credentials). This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate'.

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 when to use (to check connection status or obtain URLs for missing credentials). While it does not explicitly mention when not to use, the context of sibling tools makes it clear that 'authenticate' is the alternative for performing authentication.

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

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by explaining one-off invocation without installation, behavior when credentials or payment are needed (returning connect/checkout links), owner/admin requirements for writes, and how the prompt library works. These details are consistent with the annotation hints and add critical operational context.

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 dense paragraph of roughly 250 words without visual structure. It is front-loaded with the main purpose but becomes a wall of text; bullet points or sections would improve readability. Every sentence is informative, but the lack of structure hurts scanability.

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 a complex multi-action tool, the description covers the major flows (search, describe, invoke, install, unsubscribe, report_bug, request_mcp, prompt library) and notes auth and output links. However, it omits details on the 'resume' action and does not describe the result format for search/list_tools, which are needed for fully correct usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to core parameters like action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt variables by explaining the flow. However, it does not explicitly cover all parameters (e.g., limit, conversation, immediate, tier_slug), leaving some gaps for a 23-parameter tool.

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 identifies the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace — an in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool and the way to run them. It explicitly covers capability requests and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., wise_*) by focusing on MCP discovery and execution.

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 explicit guidance on when to use different actions: prefer invoke for single/occasional use, use install only for permanent addition, and uses list_tools for current availability. It also explains subscribe/cancel for billing, report_bug for feedback, request_mcp for new MCPs, and separates the prompt library from MCP functionality.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning the inclusion of conversation messages for reproduction. Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description implicitly supports.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary content. It is front-loaded with the action and provides key advice about the conversation array.

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 a simple reporting tool with 1 required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and includes a suggestion for reproduction. However, it does not mention what happens after reporting (e.g., ticket creation, no return value).

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 explain parameters. It only hints at the 'conversation' parameter but does not detail 'message' (required) or 'context'. This leaves agents unclear about parameter usage.

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 tool reports bugs, missing features, or sends feedback, providing a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the sibling tools are distinct (e.g., wise_*, authenticate, marketplace).

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 advises including the conversation array for reproduction, but lacks explicit when/why to use this tool over alternatives. However, no sibling tool serves a similar purpose, making usage somewhat intuitive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond confirming it shows versions. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 short sentence, directly front-loading the purpose. No extraneous information, every word earns its place.

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 no parameters, the description covers the essential purpose. It could mention the format or typical use case, but overall it is complete for a simple version tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline is 4, and the description is sufficient.

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 'show' and the resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions', making the purpose obvious. It is distinct from sibling tools which involve authentication, connectivity, or financial operations.

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 checking versions. No explicit when-not or alternatives are provided, but given the simplicity and read-only nature, the usage is clear and unlikely to be confused with other tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only profile. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the exact content of the state (MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which is useful context. No contradiction exists.

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, front-loaded sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise for such a simple 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?

With no output schema and zero parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so adequately by listing the four key types of information returned. The tool is simple enough that no additional context is needed for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly omits parameter details because none exist, and the schema (with 100% coverage since it's empty) requires no further explanation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') while enumerating exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version which only report version info.

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 when to use the tool by stating what it returns, making the use case clear. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous: use this to inspect the overall toolkit state. This matches the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral traits beyond annotations: SCA-protected (signed internally via private.pem), maximum window of 469 days, and bulk support via profile_ids/balance_ids. This provides transparency about security constraints and limits. No contradiction with 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 concise, using two paragraphs that front-load the most critical information (purpose and uniqueness) followed by limitations and bulk support. Every sentence adds value, though the second paragraph on bulk support could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: purpose, unique value, limitations (469 days, SCA protection), and bulk support. However, it lacks details on return format and parameter specifics, which would be helpful for an agent. Still, it covers the essential context for selection and usage.

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?

Despite zero schema description coverage (0%), the description does not explain individual parameter meanings beyond listing them. It mentions required parameters (profile_id, balance_id, currency, interval_start, interval_end) and optional ones (type, account, balance_ids, profile_ids) but provides no further semantics, data types, or format expectations. The description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool returns a full statement of a balance including specific transaction types (deposits, withdrawals, conversions, fees, interest, and crucially CARD_TRANSACTION). It emphasizes that this is the only Wise endpoint that exposes card transactions, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like wise_get_card_transaction (which is for a single card transaction) and wise_list_activities (which lists general activities).

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 clear context on when to use this tool: it is the unique endpoint for card transactions and is the reason this MCP exists, comparing to the alternative 'Wise connector da Pluggy/Open Finance brasileiro' which does not include card events. It also mentions bulk support and a maximum window of 469 days. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if no card transactions needed), but the unique value proposition is clearly communicated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety. Description adds context about token source but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., latency, data freshness). No contradiction with 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?

Description is very concise with two sentences and no fluff. However, it is in Portuguese while the tool name is English, which slightly reduces clarity. Structure is front-loaded but could benefit from a brief English summary.

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 exists, yet description does not explain what is returned (only says 'Detalhe'). The optional 'account' parameter is also unexplained. Given the tool has only 2 parameters and no nested objects, the description should provide more context about outputs and the optional parameter.

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?

Description explains the 'token' parameter meaning and its relationship to other tool outputs, which adds value over schema with 0% coverage. However, the optional 'account' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving it undocumented.

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 it provides details of a Wise card transaction, with specific verb and resource. Although in Portuguese, purpose is clear and mentions token provenance from sibling tools. However, language mismatch with English tool name may cause slight confusion for AI agents.

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?

Description gives guidance on where to obtain the token (from wise_list_activities or wise_get_balance_statement), which serves as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds 'SCA-protegido' (requires strong authentication) and bulk execution support via profile_ids, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two efficient sentences front-loading purpose and key traits (recency, types, SCA, bulk). No redundant words.

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?

Despite good annotations and a clear purpose, the description lacks essential parameter documentation for a 9-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage. No output schema means return format is unknown. Incomplete 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?

Schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions on parameters). The description does not explain any of the 9 parameters (e.g., size, since, until, status, account, next_cursor, monetary_resource_type) nor the required profile_id. With no parameter documentation in either schema or description, the agent cannot infer parameter usage.

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 it's a feed of activities, sorted most recent first, and lists example types (TRANSFER, CARD_PAYMENT, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wise_list_transfers and wise_list_balances by being a unified feed, but lacks explicit differentiation language.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wise_list_transfers or wise_get_card_transaction. Mentions SCA protection and bulk support, but does not explain prerequisites or when not to use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description adds useful behavioral details like default STANDARD type and batch execution support, without any contradiction.

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?

Two short paragraphs with the first sentence front-loading the purpose, and no extra words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

While annotations cover safety and the description explains most aspects, the unexplained 'account' parameter and lack of return format info (no output schema) leave some gaps for an agent.

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 description explains the 'types' parameter (STANDARD/SAVINGS), implies 'profile_id', and introduces 'profile_ids' for batch, but does not address the 'account' parameter, leaving a gap given the 0% schema coverage.

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 it lists multi-currency balances of a profile, using a specific verb 'List' and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wise_get_balance_statement by mentioning the id link.

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?

Implicit guidance on when to use (listing balances) and hints at using wise_get_balance_statement for specific statements via the id, but lacks explicit exclusions or when-not scenarios.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns PERSONAL/BUSINESS types and is for confirming profile_id, but does not disclose additional behaviors like response format or pagination.

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?

Two succinct sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the API call and purpose, then usage instruction.

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, the description lacks return value details. Parameter is unexplained. However, the tool is simple and the description covers the main purpose. Sibling tools provide context but the definition itself is incomplete for full autonomous use.

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 input schema has one parameter ('account') with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. No meaning is added beyond schema.

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 it calls /v2/profiles and returns all profiles (PERSONAL/BUSINESS) visible to the Personal Token. Although it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the purpose is specific and actionable.

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 tells the agent to use it 'to confirm the profile_id before other tools', providing a clear usage context. Does not include when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is direct and helpful.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool is SCA-protected and supports batched execution via profile_ids, which provides useful behavioral context beyond 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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by filtering details and a note on bulk support. It is efficient, though the Portuguese language may reduce clarity for English-centric AI agents.

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?

With no output schema and 10 parameters, the description omits many details such as pagination, response format, error handling, and full parameter semantics. The SCA and batch notes add value but leave significant gaps for a complex tool.

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%, requiring the description to explain parameters. However, it only covers status, currency, and dates, leaving parameters like limit, offset, account, source_currency, target_currency, created_date_start/end, and profile_id (required) partially or unaddressed.

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 it lists P2P transfers (sends and receives) from a profile, using specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wise_list_activities or wise_list_balances, but the focus on transfers is distinctive.

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 filter options (status, currency, dates) and mentions SCA protection and bulk support, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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