get_recent_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the operation and a hint about output, with no mention of side effects, return format, pagination, authentication, or whether this is a safe read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool that could be used in various contexts.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and a key aspect of the output. This is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no additional description, the tool is under-specified. The meaning of 'status summary', the exact response shape, and the definition of 'recent' (though partially covered by the 'hours' parameter) are unclear. For an agent to use this tool correctly, more context is needed.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters ('top' and 'hours') with their defaults and meanings, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds 'status summary' but does not enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('get') and resource ('recent transactions'), and adds 'with status summary' to indicate output contents. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_transaction' (singular) and 'list_transactions' (likely broader), though it does not explicitly name them.

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: use this to retrieve recent transactions with a status summary. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The presence of sibling tools like 'get_transaction' and 'list_transactions' offers context, but the description itself provides only implicit direction.

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