billing_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that the operation is read-only ('View'), reveals the wallet resolution process over SIWX with automatic signing, and specifies authorization needs for unlinked wallets. This fully conveys behavioral traits.

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?

Two concise sentences: first sentence states purpose, second adds crucial context. No unnecessary words; every sentence 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 description lacks explanation of the output format (e.g., what fields each billing entry contains) and does not mention pagination behavior, despite having no output schema. Authorization and resolution context are good, but missing output details leave a gap.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable context for the 'wallet' parameter (agent's allowance wallet, resolution, admin key requirement) beyond the schema's basic description. The 'limit' parameter is not elaborated, but overall extra context justifies a 4.

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 verb 'View' and the resource 'billing ledger history' for the 'agent's allowance wallet', distinguishing it from siblings like check_balance or allowance_status which focus on current balance or allowance state.

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 clear context about when the tool applies (viewing history for linked/unlinked wallets) and authorization requirements (admin key for unlinked wallets), but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like check_balance or allowance_export.

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