list_transactions

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

The description discloses return format, item types, pagination mechanics, and rate limits. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which is already consistent. No contradictions.

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 (three sentences), front-loads the purpose, and efficiently covers return format, pagination, and rate limiting. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no required fields, and an output schema (implied by description), the description fully explains the tool's behavior, including return structure, pagination, and rate limits. No gaps.

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%, and the description adds meaningful details: time uses ISO 8601, limit has default and max, cursor specifically relates to next_cursor and is a string (unlike other endpoints). This enriches parameter understanding.

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 cash transactions with specific types (deposits, withdrawals, fees, transfers). It distinguishes itself from sibling history endpoints by noting the cursor is a string, not a number, which differentiates it from other list tools.

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 pagination guidance (cursor format, next_cursor usage) and rate limits (6 req/min). It implies use for cash transactions vs. other history endpoints, but does not explicitly state when to avoid or list alternatives.

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