Get Transaction History

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add operational context. It does by documenting the exact response envelope, the type/nature/status enums, and the fact that all transaction types are included. A minor gap is that 'recent' is not quantified and pagination is not mentioned, but this is not critical for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 well organized into purpose, usage, return shape, and examples. Every section earns its place, and the return sample is especially valuable because there is no output schema.

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?

It compensates for the missing output schema with a detailed response example and gives enough usage context for a simple read-only call. It is not fully complete because it does not state whether a maximum history length or pagination exists, and the client-side filtering instruction is implicit rather than explicit.

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 zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the schema already covers everything. The description loses a point because the example 'filter by type=OFFRAMP' implies a filtering parameter that does not exist; it should clarify that filtering is done client-side on the returned transactions.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Returns the user's recent transaction history across all transaction types.' It is clear about scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling monei_get_transaction, so an agent has to infer the singular-vs-list distinction.

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?

It gives concrete use cases ('review past activity, check if a payment went through, or audit recent sends...') and even example user intents. However, the examples say 'filter by type=OFFRAMP' and 'show narration fields,' which could be read as tool-call parameters even though the schema has zero parameters; the description never warns that filtering must happen on the returned list, and no alternative (e.g., monei_get_transaction) is mentioned.

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