Diğer Finansal Kayıtlar (OtherFinancials)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses automatic interval splitting and the priority of transactionTypes over transactionType. It also explains the interaction between DeductionInvoices and transactionSubType, and links to another tool for cargo invoices.

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 paragraph but well-structured with clear, informative sentences. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more organized (e.g., bullet points), but it remains concise and front-loaded.

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 description provides good usage context and interactions between parameters. However, with no output schema, it lacks explanation of the response structure (e.g., pagination, fields returned). The tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, so a brief note on what to expect in the response would improve completeness.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant value: it explains the purpose of paymentDate, the exclusive use of transactionSubType with DeductionInvoices, and the behavior when both transactionType and transactionTypes are provided. The reference to trendyol_get_reference_data for type descriptions further enriches understanding.

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 the tool fetches non-order financial records, listing specific types like satıcı finansmanı, virmanlar, ödemeler, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on financial data outside of orders.

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 explains when to use transactionType vs transactionTypes, the automatic 15-day interval splitting, and the specific use of transactionSubType with DeductionInvoices. It also provides a cross-tool reference for cargo invoice serial numbers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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