Listar Pix recebidos

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds 'sem movimentar valores', reinforcing the read-only nature. However, it does not disclose pagination details or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and usage. Every word adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 complexity (multiple parameters, nested pagination) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function. It mentions period and filters, though it does not detail output format or pagination. The missing details are compensated by the schema and 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds little beyond 'filtros aceitos'. The individual parameters are well-documented in the schema, so the description does not need to elaborate further. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Lista recebimentos Pix' (lists Pix receipts) and specifies the action with 'conforme período e filtros aceitos'. It also provides a distinct use case: 'Use para conciliar entradas na conta e acompanhar devoluções sem movimentar valores', which differentiates it from siblings like pix_send_list or pix_list_charges.

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 a clear context for when to use: 'para conciliar entradas na conta e acompanhar devoluções'. It implies this tool is for listing received Pix, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools like pix_detail_received for single receipts.

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