get-exchange-transactions

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 states the tool 'Get[s] transaction data' but doesn't describe what data is returned, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'limit' parameters but not explained), error handling, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. For a read operation with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the description earns its place by stating the essential action and target.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'transaction data' includes, how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances. For a data-fetching tool with pagination and filtering parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially without annotations or output schema.

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 the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'exchange' context or how parameters interact). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'Get transaction data for a specific exchange.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction data') with context ('for a specific exchange'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-portfolio-transactions' or 'get-wallet-transactions', which reduces clarity about its unique scope.

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 siblings like 'get-portfolio-transactions' and 'get-wallet-transactions' available, there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct (e.g., exchange-specific vs. portfolio-specific transactions). It lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context.

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