get_recent_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Get' implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, nor does it mention authentication needs, rate limits, or the scope (e.g., current user's account). The parameter feedback is present but behavioral transparency beyond parameters is lacking.

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: one sentence for the purpose and two bullet-style parameter docs. It is front-loaded with the core action and has no unnecessary words. However, a more structured format (e.g., using headings) could improve scanability, but it is already 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (implied but not shown) and simple parameters (0 required, no nested objects), the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned (recent transactions) and how to filter. It does not specify the time window for 'recent' or any limits on count, but overall it is sufficient for a basic tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the full burden. It explains count as 'how many recent transactions to return (default 50)' and type_filter as 'Optional comma-separated transaction type filter' with examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it could be improved by listing valid transaction types or defining 'recent'.

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 'Get the most recent account transactions' and lists examples like 'fills, orders, funding...'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings such as get_account_summary, get_open_positions, and get_pending_orders, which focus on different aspects.

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 the alternatives. Sibling tools like get_open_trades or get_pending_orders have overlapping functionality, but no comparison or exclusions are mentioned. The context signals show many related tools, yet the description fails to clarify the use case.

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