avanza_instrument_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. Its word 'Read' signals a read-only operation, but it discloses nothing about the default executed_only=true filter (which hides pending orders), the side-effecting refresh parameter, the max_elements cap of 20000, or that 'recent' is adjustable via date parameters. These are behavioral traits beyond bare parameter names, and they are left unexplained.

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 12-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the key differentiator ('without dumping unrelated history') is packed efficiently into the same sentence.

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 19-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is far too sparse. It establishes scope and recency but omits default filter behavior, date-range semantics, the relationship between transactions_from/transactions_to and from/to, and the alternate order_book_id spelling, leaving agents to guess at most of the tool's behavior.

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 only 16% (3 of 19 parameters documented), so the description must compensate but barely does. It does add meaning to the two required scope parameters (account_id, orderbook_id) via 'one instrument/account', and 'recent' loosely hints at date filtering, yet 16 parameters including side, status, compact, refresh, executed_only, and the duplicate order_book_id spelling remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 uses a clear verb ('Read') and a specific scoped resource ('transactions for one instrument/account'), and 'without dumping unrelated history' implicitly differentiates it from the broader avanza_transactions sibling. It falls short of 5 because 'instrument/account' is ambiguous about whether both identifiers are needed, and the schema shows both account_id and orderbook_id are required.

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 phrase 'without dumping unrelated history' implies this tool is for scoped reads rather than full transaction dumps, which hints at a contrast with avanza_transactions. However, no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer selection among overlapping siblings like avanza_transactions, avanza_open_orders, avanza_ongoing_orders, and avanza_recent_fills_needing_protection.

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