Transactions Get Transaction Splits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as what is returned, how missing splits are handled, or how output_mode and fields affect the response.

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 filler, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a 3-parameter tool, so it earns only a middle score for structure.

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 and no description of the return shape or the semantics of 'splits', the description is not complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. It also fails to explain how this relates to the broader transactions tool family, making selection among siblings harder.

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 schema documents fields and output_mode, but transaction_id has no description and the tool description does not explain it. At 67% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented required parameter, but it adds no parameter-specific meaning.

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 'Get transaction splits' is a direct restatement of the tool title and name, adding no new information about what the operation does. It names a resource and verb but is essentially a tautology, with no explicit differentiation from siblings like transactions_get_transaction or transactions_update_transaction_splits.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention transactions_get_transaction for retrieving a single transaction, or transactions_update_transaction_splits for modifying splits, leaving an agent to infer the appropriate context.

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