getTransactionLog

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly discloses default 24-hour behavior, the 24-hour window when only one bound is provided, and the 7-day maximum range when both are provided. It also warns about latency during extreme market volatility. This is substantive behavioral context that helps the agent anticipate edge cases, though it does not describe pagination or result ordering.

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear opening sentence and bulleted time-range rules. The volatility note is brief and relevant. The only minor inefficiency is having a single-item 'Notes' section, but overall the content earns its place.

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?

The tool has 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and no per-parameter descriptions, yet the description only covers time-range constraints. It omits pagination behavior, sorting, response shape, and semantics for most filter fields. An agent could call it with defaults, but targeted queries or cursor-based pagination would require external knowledge, which is a significant gap for a complex tool.

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 must compensate for all parameters, but it only explains startTime/endTime semantics. Other parameters like type, category, currency, baseCoin, accountType, transSubType, limit, and cursor are left to their names and enum lists. This partial compensation is insufficient, especially for ambiguous fields such as transSubType.

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 action and resource: 'Query transaction logs in your Unified account.' The added detail about supporting up to 2 years of data further defines scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from similar siblings like getOrderHistory, getTradeHistory, or getSettlementRecord, so the distinction is left to inference.

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 provides detailed time-window rules that help when calling with different parameter combinations, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mentions exclusions. There is no sibling comparison or 'use X instead' guidance. The intended usage is only implied by the name and the phrase 'transaction logs.'

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