Get Transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: the $0.10 cost, the API key requirement, and that rows include tags and payment_method. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the purpose, then gives the key filter, cost, and auth requirement. Every phrase earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

Core list behavior, the main tag/project filter, cost, and auth are present, and annotations plus output schema handle safety and return shape. However, with 8 parameters and low schema coverage, the absence of guidance on common filters like type, limit, and include_archived makes the definition incomplete for non-basic calls.

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 only 38%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It only explains the tag/project filter pattern, partially duplicating the schema's tag/project descriptions, while leaving to, from, type, limit, cursor, and include_archived without meaningful guidance in the description.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List expense/income/transfer rows' and clarifies included fields ('tags, payment_method'). It is concrete and informative. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like search_transactions or get_expenses, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It implies usage for listing transactions with tag/project filters and adds cost/API key context. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over search_transactions, get_expenses, or get_person_transactions, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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