get_escrow_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe return format, pagination, authentication needs, or whether 'full' includes pending or historical states. This lack of context leaves the agent without important safety and outcome information.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then enumerates the covered categories. No filler or redundant phrasing. It is concise and front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main scope (escrow transaction history) and lists included transaction types. However, it lacks behavioral details like pagination or ordering, and doesn't help disambiguate from the general get_transaction_history. These gaps prevent a perfect score.

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 describes the only parameter (userId) as 'External user ID. Defaults to your own user ID.' with 100% coverage. The description simply says 'a user's' and adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and the specific resource 'user's full escrow transaction history' with coverage of locks, releases, wins, losses, and fees. This makes the tool's purpose obvious. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_transaction_history or get_escrow_balances, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this to retrieve a user's escrow transaction history. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose (e.g., get_transaction_history for general history). The description would benefit from mentioning that get_transaction_history covers non-escrow transactions or that this tool is solely for escrow-related records.

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