Get transaction splits

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

The available annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Get' is consistent with these flags. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context, such as behavior when a transaction has no splits, error conditions, or authentication expectations. It meets the baseline for a read-only operation.

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 sentence, free of filler, and clarifies the title by adding 'legs' and 'for one transaction'. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool, though it could still be slightly richer without losing focus.

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 read-only, one-parameter tool with strong annotations and an output schema present, this description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main gap is that domain-specific terminology ('split legs') is not explained and edge cases like a transaction with no splits are not mentioned, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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?

The sole parameter, transaction_id, is already documented in the schema as 'Monarch transaction ID' with 100% coverage. The description does not add further context about the expected format or how it maps to the split legs. With complete schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate and no penalty is incurred.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('split legs') scoped to one transaction, and it adds detail beyond the title by using 'legs' and specifying singular. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like get_transaction or get_transaction_categories, but the resource is distinct enough for an agent to understand what it returns.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus related sibling tools such as get_transaction or set_transaction_splits. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites beyond an ID, or a complementary write tool. This is a significant gap for an agent choosing among many similar financial read tools.

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