affiliate_monetizze_list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type (Transaction records) and a derived field (ageDays), but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, describe pagination behavior, or note any rate limits or auth requirements. The verb 'list' implies non-mutating, but more disclosure would be needed for a higher score.

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 three sentences with a clear front-loaded main action, concrete use-case examples, and return/pairing information. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 complexity of 9 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, this description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the core purpose and return type, but does not define date formats, status value handling, pagination defaults, or what happens when no parameters are provided. The pairing note helps, but gaps remain for a fully self-sufficient tool definition.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'within a window' (from/to), 'specific programme' (programmeId), and statuses (pending/reversed/paid), but it does not explain limit, cursor, offset, maxAgeDays, or minAgeDays. With 9 parameters and this low coverage, the description leaves most parameters underspecified.

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 lists affiliate transactions on Monetizze, naming specific statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid) and filtering by window or programme. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_programmes, list_clicks, and get_earnings_summary.

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?

Explicitly provides example user queries that should trigger this tool ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and suggests pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, which is an alternative-use note.

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