Get account transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Fetch' and explains the default recent window behavior, which is useful context. However, it does not cover pagination, auth requirements, or other edge cases, leaving it adequate but not comprehensive.

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, consisting of three short sentences with the key action front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the action, the timestamp format, and the default behavior.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job explaining the core behavior and the optional date range. It lacks details about the return format and edge cases, but for a four-parameter tool with a clear schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that dates are Unix timestamps and by explaining that omitting the date range makes the bridge return its default recent window, which goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 fetches transactions for connected accounts, using the specific verb 'Fetch' and a clear resource. The sibling tools (list_accounts, connection_status, claim_setup_token) are about accounts, status, and setup, making the transaction resource distinct.

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 tells the agent the tool is for retrieving transactions and gives context about the date range, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose, but clear when-to-use guidance is absent.

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