tolly_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the login-message signature, the buyer-key auth requirement, that funds cannot be moved, and that results cannot be opened. It lacks details such as rate limits or pagination behavior, but the key safety and auth traits are present.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every clause adds useful scope, security, or output information. It is somewhat dense as a single long sentence with parentheticals, but it avoids repetition and wasted words.

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 zero-parameter read/list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the important context: time window, cost, returned fields, receipt-token endpoint, auth behavior, and safety limits. Exact response structure, pagination, and error behavior are not covered, so it is strong but not fully 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?

There are zero input parameters, so the schema carries no parameter-semantics burden. The description appropriately explains returned fields and the receipt endpoint, though no input parameter meaning is needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list this wallet's own purchases over the last 90 days. It clearly defines the scope and returned data, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as tolly_jobs_search or tolly_job_get.

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 usage context is implied by the 90-day purchase-history scope and the free cost. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when its results would be insufficient.

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