get_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering behavior ('newest first') and the scope of transaction types, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, whether agentId is required for accessing another agent's history, or any rate limits or pagination. The description is not misleading but leaves out behavioral context that could matter.

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, tightly packed sentence that conveys the essential purpose and key details (transaction types, ordering). No filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain the parameter and hint at the return shape. It covers the purpose and ordering, but the agentId parameter is unexplained, and the return format is not described. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke 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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter agentId, and the description does not mention it at all. The agent is left to guess whether agentId filters by agent, is optional, or has any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of information.

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 it returns wallet transaction history, enumerates the transaction types (deposits, escrow holds, payouts, withdrawals), and specifies ordering (newest first). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wallet or withdraw_funds.

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 implies usage: use this to see wallet transaction history. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_wallet, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. It is clear in its scope but lacks comparative guidance.

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