import_transactions

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the full burden and does well. It discloses that the tool writes to a local SQLite store, is idempotent (updates existing rows in place), and affects downstream queries (get_pnl). It clearly indicates the tool has side effects and explains the update behavior, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second clarifies idempotency and update behavior, and the third explains the downstream impact. It is front-loaded, concise, and free of fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It covers the action, side effects, idempotency, and relationship to get_pnl. It does not specify return values or error handling, but with no output schema, that is not strictly required. It could be improved by mentioning what happens on invalid CSV files, but it is otherwise comprehensive.

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?

The schema has only one parameter, file_path, with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description compensates by specifying that the expected file is a 'Bitvavo CSV transaction export,' giving the parameter context and expected format. While it doesn't detail full schema or error handling, it adds meaning beyond just the parameter name and type.

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 specific action: 'Import a Bitvavo CSV transaction export into the local SQLite store.' The verb 'import' and the resource (CSV export) are explicit, and it distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling tools (get_balance, get_pnl, etc.) by being a write/import operation.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: it mentions that after import, get_pnl uses these records as the canonical source, implying users should import before querying PnL. It also explains idempotency and update behavior, giving practical usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'when not to use,' but with no alternative import tools among siblings, the context is sufficient.

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