earn_get_movements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: the response includes movement types, amounts, dates, rates, source/issuer info, supports filtering and pagination, and that all parameters are optional. It does not mention rate limits or exact pagination envelope, but this is sufficient for a read-only list operation.

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 compact: one sentence for the core action and scope, one for return fields, one for filter options, and one for response shape and optionality. Every sentence adds value, no filler, and the key information is 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?

Given the 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the resource scope, return fields, filter dimensions, pagination behavior, and response metadata concept. It does not spell out exact pagination response fields or explicitly route to siblings, but those are minor gaps because the schema covers parameter details and the description covers the operational essence.

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%, so the input schema already documents every parameter. The description adds a useful grouping of filters and the note that all parameters are optional, but it does not substantially expand on individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Thus the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get movement history across all Earn positions.' It also enumerates the returned fields and the available filters, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like earn_get_position_movements (position-specific) and earn_get_movements_summary (summary-level). The scope 'across all Earn positions' is explicit.

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 intended use is clear: retrieve detailed movement history across all Earn positions, with optional filters for symbol, position, type, date range, and pagination. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for single-position or summary queries, nor state exclusions. The context is obvious enough for routing, but not fully explicit.

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