get_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail: newest-first ordering, inclusion of pending rows regardless of status filter, the full set of statuses, and the default 30-day window. These go beyond the structured annotations and help the agent understand runtime 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then adds enumerations of transaction types, row fields, and defaults. Every sentence contributes value, but the list of categories and statuses makes it moderately long. It is efficient for its content, though a clearer separation of key defaults would improve scannability.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the important aspects: what transactions are included, the row fields, the statuses, the inclusion of pending rows, and the default date range. It does not describe pagination behavior or error/rate-limit handling, but the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety. The reference to get_transaction_filters in the schema partially handles filter usage, so the description is fairly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about defaults (e.g., 'son 30 gün' aligns with from_date/to_date defaults) and pending-row behavior related to status, but it does not explain parameters like filter or details beyond what the schema already states. It neither fully compensates for gaps nor adds significant new parameter meaning.

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: it returns transaction history ('Hesap hareketleri geçmişi'), and enumerates the transaction categories covered (stock/ETF/TEFAS trades, TL/FX deposits and withdrawals, interest, dividend, instant cash). It also notes the ordering (newest first) and that pending rows are always included, which helps distinguish it from get_pending_orders and other 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?

The description clearly conveys what the tool returns and its scope, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pending_orders, or provide any exclusions. The phrase 'Bekleyen satırlar her zaman dahildir' implies pending rows are covered, but no sibling routing is given, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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