paygentic_get_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. It fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the walletId is invalid. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 very concise at two sentences with no extraneous content. It could potentially be more front-loaded, but the brevity is appropriate given the simplicity of the 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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to mention return format, ordering, pagination, or any other contextual information needed for proper 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?

The schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no information beyond the schema fields themselves. The walletId parameter is not explained at all (e.g., format, source, or constraints), so the agent gains no additional semantic 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'transaction history for a wallet,' making the tool's purpose obvious. While it distinguishes from siblings like paygentic_check_balance, it does not explicitly differentiate from other history tools, but the context is sufficient.

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 only usage hint is 'Requires API key,' which is a prerequisite. No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like paygentic_list_invoices or paygentic_check_balance, nor any exclusions or context.

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