Bnc transactions

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world; the description adds material domain behavior they cannot convey — date-only precision with 04:00Z meaning Caracas midnight, sign carried by `direction` rather than `amount`, Spanish `kind`, masked account numbers, and BCV rate columns. It also warns that counterparty text is untrusted data, not instructions, which is a genuine safety disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns and its ordering before moving to field quirks and then argument rules — a sensible order. A few clauses (limit bounds, date formats) duplicate the schema and could be trimmed without loss.

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, yet the description pre-empts the misinterpretations an agent would actually make (positive amount plus separate direction, Spanish kind, masked account, BCV rate provenance, date-only precision) and closes the aggregation loop via get_summary. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by fixing the time convention ('All times are UTC; YYYY-MM-DD means 00:00Z'), confirming inclusivity of from_date and whole-day semantics of a date-only to_date, and restating limit bounds and the cursor round-trip. That adds interpretation guidance beyond the schema's field blurbs, though several points are restatements.

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?

Names the specific resource (Banco Nacional de Credito / BNC transactions) with scope ('newest first') and pins the currency ('Always in VES'). An agent can instantly separate it from the sibling get_binance_transactions without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from paging for aggregates: 'For totals use get_summary instead of paging', and gives a concrete paging rule tied to next_cursor. It does not mention get_transaction for single-record lookups or state any exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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