topvisor_bank_history

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence) and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, leaving out essential details. It is adequately concise but not optimal.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how to use parameters or what the response looks like, making it insufficient for confident use.

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 only 25% (only 'fields' has a description). The description does not explain parameters like 'orders', 'limit', or 'offset' beyond what the schema provides. It adds no additional value to parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'account transaction history' with specific transaction types (deposits, charges, bonuses). It distinguishes from siblings like 'topvisor_balance' and 'topvisor_get_history' by specifying the scope is transaction history, not just balance or generic history. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'topvisor_balance' or 'topvisor_get_history'. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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