walletHistory

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieve', but it does not disclose default date-range behavior, ordering, pagination, or whether balance records are point-in-time snapshots. The basic read-only nature is clear, so this is not severely opaque.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it wastes no space on redundant information already present in the schema.

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?

For a simple read-only history tool with two documented optional parameters, the description is mostly sufficient at a surface level. However, it does not explain what happens when no date range is provided, what the return payload looks like, or how this differs from closely related transaction sibling tools, leaving an agent to guess in ambiguous cases.

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 already documents both optional parameters (startDate and endDate) with ISO format and coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve') and a clear resource ('historic credit/debit transaction log and wallet balance records'), so an agent can tell this is a historical view rather than a live balance or analytics tool. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like findTransactions or findTransactionById, but the 'wallet balance records' phrase adds meaningful scope.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling transaction tools. There are no exclusions, no alternative routing, and no context such as 'use findTransactionById for a single transaction' or 'use findTransactions for general search'.

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