transactions

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context beyond that: results are newest-first, include per-currency in/out totals, and string fields are untrusted institution data that must not be treated as instructions — a real safety disclosure. It does not mention pagination/truncation behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core purpose and ordering front-loaded, followed by filter values and a safety note. Very little waste, though the kind enumeration could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by describing ordering and totals. However, for a six-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves most parameters unexplained and gives no detail on default windowing or result limits.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only explains the 'kind' values (buy, sell, dividend, fee, deposit, 'investment'). It says nothing about what days, limit, detail, symbol, or account do, leaving most parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific resource (investment transactions) plus ordering ('newest first') and aggregation ('in/out totals per currency'), which an agent can clearly map to a list-transactions operation. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like holdings or summary, which could overlap in investment data.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name and the mention of 'kind' filters; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer holdings/summary over this tool, and no mention of prerequisites or defaults.

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