qt_get_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' and 'historical' imply a read-only operation, but the description does not state authentication requirements, date-range semantics, pagination, or what response shape to expect.

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 with no filler and the key verb is front-loaded. It is concise, though slightly vague with 'transactions/activities'.

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 large sibling set, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool. It needs more context about parameter behavior, result shape, and how this differs from related data tools.

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 loosely maps to the parameters via 'historical' (startTime/endTime) and 'account' (accountId), but it does not explain time format, whether the range is inclusive, or how accountId behaves when omitted.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('historical transactions/activities') and scope ('for an account'). It is not a tautology and clearly conveys the tool's core function, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like qt_get_orders or qt_get_candles.

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, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites. An agent cannot tell from the description why it should choose this over qt_get_orders or other sibling tools.

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