Foran Money history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-domain read. The description adds the transaction categories, which is modest context, but says nothing about ordering (newest first?), pagination, or empty-wallet behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single short sentence with the key scoping word ("Recent") front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient but so terse that it reads as a label rather than an instruction, which slightly undercuts the front-loading benefit.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema this is close to sufficient, but it omits the two things an agent most needs: what a returned transaction contains and how the limit parameter affects the result. Simple tool, thin description, borderline acceptable.

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 50%: session_key is documented in the schema as coming from foran_login, but limit has only min/max/default constraints and no meaning anywhere. The description does not explain that the result is capped or how "recent" relates to limit, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Recent Foran Money (wallet) transactions" names a specific resource and scope, and the cashback/top-ups/payments list tells an agent what content to expect. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling order tools like foran_my_orders or foran_order_details, though the verb is only implied (a fragment, not "List").

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as foran_my_orders for purchases versus this wallet ledger. The word "recent" hints at recency scoping but doesn't say whether older transactions are reachable or how this differs from order history.

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