earn_get_movements_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns total count, total amounts, and aggregated data, and scopes the query across all Earn positions. It also flags PRIVATE status. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the core action and resource, embed the valid values and return content, and drop a PRIVATE marker. No redundant words or restatement of the tool name.

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 reasonably discloses what is returned (total count, total amounts, aggregated data) and the scope (all Earn positions). It could name sibling tools for disambiguation or describe response structure more precisely, but for a two-parameter summary endpoint with strong annotations this is nearly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the valid type values already present in the schema and adds no new meaning for jwt or type beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description names the exact operation (get summary statistics), the resource (Earn movements), and the aggregation scope (across all Earn positions), which separates it from sibling movement-listing or position-level tools. It also enumerates the valid type values, leaving no ambiguity about what it operates on.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving aggregated movement data by type, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over earn_get_movements, earn_get_summary, or earn_get_position_movements_summary, nor does it give exclusion criteria. The guidance is implicit in 'summary statistics' versus alternatives, not explicit enough for a 4.

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