nexus_get_transactions

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), it discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: data is hidden under plain API-key auth and the tool requires an OAuth exchange. It also reports that the tool surfaces the error otherwise, plus the return shape, giving the agent useful runtime expectations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes an auth note. The Return JSON block is useful but somewhat redundant with the existing output schema, so it is not perfectly lean.

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 read-only, idempotent, 7-optional-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers scope, auth prerequisite, failure behavior, and the general result shape, so an agent can select and call it appropriately.

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 100%, and the schema already describes all seven optional parameters (pagination start, search string, bank_id, per_page, order_dir, account_id, order_column). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get Donation Points transactions for the current user (v2 GraphQL)', a specific verb, resource, and scope. This clearly separates it from the many other nexus_get_* tools, which target mods, games, collections, or user preferences.

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 explicitly states the required auth flow: 'Requires OAuth login (nexus_oauth_login + nexus_oauth_exchange)' and warns that apikey-only auth hides the data and surfaces an error. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the current-user scope and auth prerequisite give clear selection context.

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