show_txns

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full disclosure responsibility. It explains the ascending date order, case-insensitive ticker filtering for both stocks and non-stocks, and the currency handling (original currency per row, price in display_currency). These are useful behavioral traits, though pagination or row limits are not addressed.

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 concise (four sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds new information without repetition. It is well-structured and efficient for an AI agent to quickly grasp the tool's function and usage.

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?

Although the description covers the main transaction types, ordering, and currency behavior, it lacks details about the full set of output fields (e.g., date, quantity, transaction type) since there is no output schema. For a log tool, listing typical columns would improve completeness, but the given info is minimally adequate.

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% (baseline 3). The description adds value beyond the schema: it clarifies that ticker filter works for non-stock assets and is case-insensitive, and it explains how display_currency affects the returned price. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema's basic text.

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 it returns a 'Full transaction log (buys, sells, deposits, dividends, taxes) ordered by date ascending.' This specific verb-resource combination with transaction types and ordering makes the purpose unmistakable, and it distinguishes itself from sibling 'show_*' tools by focusing on individual transaction records.

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 per-transaction queries like 'show me all my AAPL trades' but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like show_portfolio (aggregated holdings) or show_balance. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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