list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden and discloses nothing: no default limit, no ordering, no pagination behavior, no auth requirements, and no notion of what 'recent' means in time or count. For a mutation-free but parameterized list operation, this is a near-total gap.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But at three words it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes from omitting required information, not from efficient phrasing.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no documented parameters, the description is the only source of contract information and supplies none of it. An agent cannot determine result shape, ordering, or how the two filters interact.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Neither 'limit' (default? max?) nor the 'status' enum (the schema lists values but not their meanings) is explained, so an agent must guess at filtering and paging semantics.

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 names a clear verb ('List') and resource ('transactions'), which is enough for an agent to recognize the operation. However, 'recent' is an undefined scope qualifier and there is no differentiation from any sibling tool, leaving the purpose only vaguely bounded.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or what alternative to use. The siblings are mostly configuration getters and payment creators, so an agent could infer this is the read-side counterpart, but the description provides zero explicit guidance.

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