marketplace_get_charges

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate them. The description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., return format, pagination). It is consistent with the annotations but adds minimal value beyond the basic operation.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and gets to the point immediately. While it is extremely concise, it does not waste any cycles; however, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has 7 optional filter parameters and pagination, but the description doesn't mention that it supports filtering or that it returns a paginated list. However, the schema covers these details, and the annotations cover safety. The description is minimal but not misleading, so it's adequate but could be more complete for an agent to understand the full capabilities.

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 all 7 parameters (skip, limit, userId, endDate, eventId, meterId, startDate) are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-related semantics, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 all wallet charges' clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('wallet charges'), and the word 'all' distinguishes it from the sibling tool marketplace_get_specific_charge. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the list/pagination nature or the ability to filter, though that is implied. It's clear but not fully elaborated.

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. It doesn't mention that marketplace_get_specific_charge should be used when retrieving a single charge, nor does it hint at filtering or scenarios where this list tool is appropriate. No exclusions or context are given.

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