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.

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: upsert behavior (merge partial update when id matches), auto-generation of id for new transactions, recalculation of value based on amount*price, required fields for new transactions, and the optional use of tx_hash. No annotations are provided, so the description fully compensates.

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 relatively long but well-structured with paragraphs separating normal trades, swaps, upsert behavior, and required fields. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, some content could be condensed, making it less concise than optimal.

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 (14 parameters, upsert behavior, swap handling) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers most behavioral aspects thoroughly. It mentions sibling tools for disambiguation. It does not explain the return value of the tool, which is a minor gap.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the meanings of several key parameters (side, symbol, price, amount, fiat_value, fiat_currency, id, tx_hash, value). It does not explicitly cover all 14 parameters (e.g., notes, timestamp, exchange, fee_amount, fee_asset are mentioned as required but not detailed). The coverage is extensive enough to guide an agent, though not exhaustive.

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 defines the tool as recording a trade (BUY/SELL, including swaps) and differentiates it from the sibling log_transfer tool, specifying which tool to use for asset transfers without exchange. The verb 'Registra' and the resource 'trade' 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs the sibling log_transfer: 'Per spostare lo stesso asset tra due exchange/wallet, senza scambiarlo con un altro asset, usa invece il tool log_transfer.' Also explains how to handle crypto/crypto swaps, including the recommendation to provide fiat_value and fiat_currency for better P&L calculation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains upsert behavior (auto-generated ID, partial merge for existing records), required fields for new transfers, and the nature of fees (network fee, not trading commission). However, it does not explicitly address side effects like idempotency or potential data loss, slightly reducing completeness.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and distinction, followed by parameter details and behavior. It is slightly verbose but every part adds value. No redundant sentences, but could be tightened slightly.

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 12 parameters, upsert behavior, and no output schema, the description covers most essential aspects: both usage scenarios, parameter meanings, create vs. update behavior, and required fields. It doesn't describe the return value, but that's minor. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description must compensate. It explains key parameters: exchange (origin), to_exchange (destination), symbol (single asset), fee_amount/fee_asset (network fee), tx_hash (recommended), fiat_value/fiat_currency (optional). However, the 'notes' parameter is not mentioned, and 'amount' is implied but not explicitly defined, leaving a minor gap.

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 explicitly states the tool logs asset movement between two custodians, uses 'upsert per id', and distinguishes it from a trade by noting no side or price. It also names the sibling tool log_transaction for swaps between different assets, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly says when to use (same-asset transfer between custodians) and when not to (different-asset swap, directing to log_transaction). It also advises using tx_hash for on-chain transfers, providing practical guidance.

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