Monobank statement

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important runtime behavior: the server may wait up to 35 seconds for a rate-limit slot, can fail fast with a wait time, and the response reports the exact window used. It also clarifies amount units and sign conventions, which is highly useful contextual behavior.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, units, window limit, rate limiting, retry semantics, chaining, and account selection are all covered without filler. The most identifying information is placed first, and the rest builds logically.

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 covers the hard-to-discover operational details needed to invoke the tool correctly, including rate limits, retries, window chaining, and account id handling. There is no output schema, so a fuller description of the transaction response fields would make it fully complete, but the key return semantics are already stated.

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 already 100%, so the description does not need to repeat formats and defaults. It adds extra value by explaining the maximum window span, chaining windows with from = previous to, and account selection, which are meaningful constraints beyond the raw schema text.

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 that the tool returns transactions for one account or jar within a time window, which is a specific resource and action. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as get_currency_rates, get_bank_public_key, and set_webhook because it uniquely handles transaction history.

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 gives strong operational guidance: maximum window size, rate limiting, retry behavior, and how to chain calls. It also explains how to select the account using get_client_info, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative sibling over this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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