get_fund_transfer_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or describe pagination behavior (though parameters hint at it). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward read tool, though it could incorporate pagination or filtering hints without losing conciseness.

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 tool has 6 parameters including pagination controls (before, after, limit) with detailed schema descriptions, the description does not mention pagination or result ordering. The missing output schema increases the need for return format context, which is absent. The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand usage.

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 coverage is 100% (all 6 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description 'between accounts' adds minimal extra meaning beyond the fromAccount and toAccount parameter names, providing no new semantic value.

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 retrieves fund transfer history, distinguishing it from related sibling tools like fund_transfer (which creates transfers) and other history tools (e.g., get_deposit_history). The verb 'Get' and resource 'fund transfer history' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_deposit_history, get_withdrawal_history, or fund_transfer. There is no mention of prerequisites, recommended scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without directional cues.

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