transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses the auto-splitting behavior and the dollar option, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or the nature of the API 'garbage' (e.g., whether it's an error or data corruption).

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 concise (two sentences plus a list of transaction types in the first sentence). It front-loads the primary purpose and key usage tips. Some structure could be improved (e.g., separate parameter details), but overall it is efficient.

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 has no output schema and four parameters with no schema descriptions. The description covers dates and the dollar parameter, but lacks detail on return values, pagination, and differentiation from sibling tools like accounts or order_history. For a transaction history tool, more contextual information is needed.

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 clarifies start_date and end_date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and explains the dollar parameter's purpose. However, the account parameter is not explained (only default value shown), and the description does not fully describe all parameter constraints or expected behavior given the 0% coverage.

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 account transaction history between two dates, listing transaction types (buys, sells, dividends, fees, deposits, withdrawals). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like orders or order_history, which might also return transaction-like data.

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 some usage guidance: it warns about the API bug with calendar-year spans and explains the automatic split, as well as the dollar parameter for foreign-currency ledger. However, it does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to sibling tools, and lacks context on prerequisites or limitations.

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