Get Instances Customers Wallets Yield Transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of pagination behavior, result ordering, or that it is a per-wallet scoped list.

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 single phrase is short but that shortness reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. It is front-loaded but carries no actionable content.

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 an 8-parameter, 3-required-parameter endpoint with no output schema and partial schema descriptions, the description omits pagination semantics, filtering behavior, and return shape. It is not nearly complete enough for an agent to call it confidently.

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?

With 8 parameters and only 63% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate but supplies zero parameter meaning. Key parameters like 'id', 'token', and 'instance_id' lack descriptions in the schema and get no explanation here, and the cursor/limit interaction is unaddressed.

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 'Retrieve Wallet Yield Transactions' restates the tool name and title almost verbatim, adding no scope or detail. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as GetV1InstancesCustomersWalletsYieldHistory or GetV1InstancesCustomersWalletsYield.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the several sibling yield/wallet endpoints, and no mention of prerequisites such as requiring a wallet that has yield enabled. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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