avanza_transactions

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

With no annotations, the read-only nature is reasonably inferable from the verb 'List', but the description stops there. It does not disclose behavior such as default executed_only=true, pagination via max_elements, refresh semantics, include_raw evidence preservation, or how date filters are interpreted.

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 with no filler. It states the core action, the resource, the default scope, and the available filter types in a compact form that is easy to scan.

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 21 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this short description is not sufficient for reliable invocation. It omits return format, date format expectations, default filtering behavior, pagination, account/session selection, and how the tool differs from several closely related siblings in the same toolset.

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 14%, so the description must compensate, but it only summarizes 'account/date/type filters' and the default BUY/SELL. The majority of the 21 parameters remain unexplained, including changed_since, status, executed_only, compact, refresh, include_raw, session scope, orderbook_id variants, and instrument_name, leaving an agent to guess their semantics.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('executed orders/history'), and it conveys the default BUY/SELL scope plus optional account/date/type filters. It can be distinguished from open-order siblings like avanza_open_orders, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar history tools such as avanza_instrument_transactions or avanza_paper_trades.

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 useful context: it is about executed/historical orders and supports optional filters. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of instrument-scoped or paper-trading transaction tools among the siblings.

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