get_transaction_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action is read-only ('Restituisce') and specifies that date filters are inclusive and in UTC. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as response format, pagination, or any side effects. The description is minimally adequate.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and then details parameters. It is concise but could be restructured for easier scanning (e.g., bullet points). However, it contains no unnecessary words and effectively communicates the tool's purpose and filters.

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?

An output schema exists (assumed but not shown), so explanation of return values is not required. The description covers filtering options and date inclusivity/UTC zone. However, it lacks information on default behavior (e.g., returns all history if no filters), pagination, or response limits. For a history retrieval tool, this is acceptable but not fully 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 0%, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains the side parameter can use 'TRANSFER' to filter only transfers, and notes that date filters are inclusive and in UTC. This adds semantic value beyond the schema's property names and types. It could further describe parameter formats or constraints.

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 it returns saved transaction history (trades and transfers) with optional filtering. The verb 'Restituisce' and resource 'storico delle transazioni' are specific. Sibling tools (log_transaction, log_transfer) are for creation, so the read purpose is distinguishable, though not explicitly contrasted.

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?

Implied usage: use when you need to retrieve transaction history. The description lists available filters but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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