list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It accurately states the operation as listing transactions, which implies a read-only action. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or any potential side effects, though the minimal nature of a list operation makes this acceptable.

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 that is succinct and front-loaded with the primary action. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives and does not mention pagination or filter behavior. For a straightforward list operation, it is minimally viable but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the wallet filter (wallet_id) but does not explain the limit and offset parameters. The pagination controls are omitted, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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 transactions and optionally filters by wallet. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_wallets and list_labels by specifying the resource type (transactions).

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 implies usage for listing transactions, with an optional wallet filter. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though sibling tools are sufficiently distinct.

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