valta_list_proxy_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the types of results (allowed, blocked, refunded, pending) and mentions why they occurred. However, it omits pagination behavior (though limit parameter exists) and does not state that the tool is read-only.

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 efficiently conveys the purpose and a key option. Every phrase adds value, with no wasted 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?

For a list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the result content well but does not cover return format, ordering, or pagination. This is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent that might need details on how to handle large result sets.

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% with both parameters documented. The description adds context for agentId ('Optionally filter to one agent') but does not mention the limit parameter or its default/max behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'receipts for every call made through Valta's spend-gated egress proxy', detailing what each receipt contains (allowed, blocked, refunded, pending). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like valta_list_agents or valta_list_wallets.

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 viewing proxy request history but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, or any exclusions. The optional filter is noted but no context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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