list_transactions

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the API quirk that the endpoint returns page links instead of transactions, and details the exact response structure (from, to, pageSize, count, pages, lastTransactionID). It also notes RFC3339 timestamps. This is significant behavioral context that would otherwise be surprising.

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, dense paragraph with code formatting, but every sentence carries necessary information about the pagination quirk and response format. It is not overly verbose for the complexity of the endpoint, though it could be slightly more succinct without losing value.

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 an output schema exists, the description provides a thorough explanation of the non-obvious page-link behavior, the workflow for retrieving actual transactions, and timestamp formats. This makes the tool fully understandable and actionable even without inspecting the schema or output schema.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter is well-documented, but the description adds extra value by clarifying how page_size relates to the page URLs (at most page_size transactions per link). This goes slightly beyond the schema's 'Transactions per page link' description, earning a 4.

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 the tool lists transaction pages for a time range, and explicitly distinguishes this endpoint from get_transactions_range by explaining that it returns page links, not the transactions themselves. This is a specific verb+resource with clear sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to call get_transactions_range to fetch the actual transactions using the from/to IDs from page URLs. This names a concrete alternative and tells the agent when to use that sibling, which satisfies both when-to-use and next-step direction.

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