get_treasury_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pagination behavior (integer cursor, not UUID-based), lists returned fields (amount, balance, canonicalDay, description, transaction type), and enumerates transaction types. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether results are filtered by default, but it adds substantial context beyond a basic read operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the pagination note is placed as a secondary detail. It is efficient without unnecessary padding, though the transaction type enumeration is somewhat verbose.

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?

For a read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it retrieves, the return fields, transaction types, and the pagination mechanism. It is nearly complete but does not address potential error conditions or permissions, which are minor gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (limit, order, cursor, treasuryId). The description mentions 'integer cursor pagination,' which reinforces the cursor parameter's type but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('paginated transactions for a specific Mercury treasury account'), which is distinguishable from generic siblings like list_transactions or get_transaction. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools such as get_treasury_accounts or list_account_transactions, leaving some ambiguity.

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 implies usage for retrieving treasury account transactions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_transactions or get_transaction. There is no 'when not to use' or alternative specification.

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