wallet_get_movements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the return fields, the status enum values, and the [PRIVATE] flag, which helps the agent understand the response shape and sensitivity beyond 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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence covers a distinct aspect: scope, filters, return fields, status enum, and privacy. No filler or redundant content is present.

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?

For a read-only list/history tool with fully described parameters and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context: return fields, status values, pagination, and privacy. Some operational details like ordering or behavior for unknown movement_id are omitted, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description restates filter and pagination behavior but does not add meaningful parameter semantics 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?

The description identifies the resource as wallet operations history and specifies the return payload fields (type, amount, symbol, status, date). It is clear enough to understand the tool's function, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling movement-history tools like earn_get_movements or loan_get_movements.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use movement_id, symbol, and limit/offset, and the schema confirms all parameters are optional. However, it does not state exclusions or explicitly compare against alternative tools, so the guidance is context-rich but not fully differentiated.

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