zetrix_get_transaction_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get completed transaction records,' implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what 'completed' entails (e.g., confirmed vs. pending). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more structured by explicitly mentioning optional parameters or output format to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with two parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., list format, fields), error conditions, or how 'completed' is defined, leaving the agent under-informed for effective use.

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%, with both parameters ('hash' and 'ledgerSeq') documented as optional. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., how parameters interact or default behavior), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get completed transaction records' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('completed transaction records'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'zetrix_get_transaction' or 'zetrix_get_transaction_cache', which likely retrieve similar data, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'zetrix_get_transaction' (likely for single transactions) and 'zetrix_get_transaction_cache' (possibly cached data), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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