Wallet, journal and transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful substance by naming the returned fields (party names, item/quantity/price/location/counterparty), but says nothing about defaults, the 30-day ESI retention limit, empty-result behavior, or volume of data returned.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the headline output (ISK balance) and then the sub-sections. Dense parenthetical field lists are efficient rather than wasteful, though the single long sentence is at the edge of readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably by enumerating the four result sections and key fields. Combined with the fully documented schema and read-only annotation, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only defaults/retention nuance is left to the schema.

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 100% and each parameter is well documented in-schema, so baseline is 3. The description only implicitly links 'recent days' to the days parameter and lists journal/transaction sections; it adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, and never mentions the character parameter.

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?

States a concrete resource (ISK balance, income/expense breakdown, journal entries, market transactions) with specific content enumerated. It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, but makes no attempt to differentiate from adjacent tools such as market_orders, assets, or contracts, which also touch financial/inventory 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 never states when to call this versus alternatives like market_orders or contracts, nor any prerequisites (e.g., character selection, ESI scope or auth). Usage is only inferable from the list of returned data.

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