get_transactions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the pagination behavior (cursor-based `after`) and that it returns a timeline, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't cover open-world nuances (e.g., data may change between calls) beyond the annotation hint.

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 one sentence, dense with information: what it retrieves, it's a timeline, and how to use the cursor for pagination. No fluff, front-loaded with the key purpose.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and the description covers the core purpose and the only parameter's semantics. It doesn't mention return format, but without an output schema and given the simplicity, the description is mostly complete. The only minor gap is not specifying what 'transactions' includes (e.g., types), but that's not critical for basic 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does explain `after` as a cursor from a previous answer, which is essential for correct invocation. This adds meaning beyond the schema's minimal definition even though the schema is simple.

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 clearly states it retrieves 'Latest account transactions (timeline)', identifying the resource (transactions) and the temporal scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_orders or get_portfolio by specifying 'transactions' and timeline, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

It tells when to use it (to get latest transactions) and how to paginate ('Pass the cursor from a previous answer as `after` for older ones'). It implies this is the go-to tool for transaction history, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_orders.

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