get_small_balance_exchange_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'gets' history, implying a read operation, but omits details like pagination, rate limits, data freshness, or whether it returns all records or paginated. Minimal transparency.

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 with two lines for parameters, front-loading the purpose. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points or a full sentence) to improve readability.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fails to describe the return format, pagination behavior, or field explanations. For a historical data retrieval tool, this is insufficient; agents lack context on what to expect.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains account_type as a filter and limit as number of records, adding meaning beyond the schema's defaults and types. However, it lacks details like valid account_type values or maximum limit, keeping it at a baseline 3.

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 retrieves 'small balance exchange history', indicating a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_coin_exchange_records or get_small_balance_coins, so it loses a point.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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