finary_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'read', which implies a non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose pagination semantics, filter behavior, response structure, or any side effects. For a tool with 9 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence, which is concise but arguably too sparse for a tool with 9 parameters. It front-loads the core purpose, but lacks structure to organize the various optional filters, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not explain date formats, pagination behavior, query syntax, or how filters interact, leaving too much to guesswork.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only generically mentions 'optional filters' and names account types, which maps loosely to the 'account_type' parameter, but it does not explain any of the other parameters (page, query, marked, account, perpage, dates, institution). The added value over the raw schema is minimal.

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 the verb 'read', the resource 'transactions', and scopes to specific account types (checking, investment, credit). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with user, org, connections, and portfolio data, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies this is the tool for transaction data, and since no sibling tool covers transactions, the usage context is evident. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but given the sibling set, the division of responsibility is clear enough.

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