Get Transaction History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond this by specifying pagination behavior (limit default 20/max 100, offset default 0), the response_format default ('markdown'), and return contents ('List of transactions with amounts, types, and dates'), which is useful given no output schema exists. No contradiction with annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the structure (args, returns) is tidy. However, the Args block duplicates what the input schema already fully documents, adding length without new information; the Returns line, by contrast, earns its place since there is no output schema.

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?

The description covers core invocation details (filters, pagination, output format, return contents) and is supplemented by rich annotations, adequate for a read-only list tool. The notable gap is the missing relationship or contrast with upwork_get_earnings, which an agent needs to route correctly among 24 siblings.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters, their defaults, enums, and date patterns. The description's Args section merely restates the schema without adding new meaning (e.g., date inclusivity or how filters combine), earning the baseline score of 3.

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 clear action ('Get your transaction history') and enumerates the resource scope ('all financial transactions including earnings, withdrawals, and fees'), which sets it apart from most siblings. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely named sibling upwork_get_earnings, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are stated, and the sibling upwork_get_earnings appears to overlap semantically, so an agent has no basis to decide which one to invoke.

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