Get Transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a read operation returning transactions, but it says nothing about pagination, response shape, error behavior, empty-week outcomes, or any authentication limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then clarifies scope and transaction types. There is no redundant wording or filler, so every word earns its place.

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?

The input schema fully documents both parameters and the tool is conceptually simple, so the description is adequate for knowing what to request. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe what the returned transaction data looks like or how missing transactions are represented, leaving some contextual gap for an agent invoking the tool.

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 100%, so both league_id and round are already documented. The description lightly reinforces that 'round' corresponds to the week, but it adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the input schema provides. Baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('all transactions'), and the exact scope ('for a league in a given week (round)'). It also enumerates what kinds of transactions are included (trades, waivers, free agent adds/drops), which removes ambiguity and distinguishes it from the sibling league/roster/draft tools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when transaction activity for a specific league and week is needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as get_matchups or get_draft_picks, leaving selection to inference from the resource name.

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