Cash transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds valuable behavioral context about ordering ('newest first') and pagination ('pass the returned nextCursor to continue'). It also clarifies the types of transactions included. This goes beyond what annotations provide and does not contradict them.

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?

Two sentences, compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by use cases and pagination details. Every sentence adds useful information with zero waste.

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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, why to use it, ordering, and pagination. The annotations supply safety context, making this complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 100%, so parameters are already described. The description adds meaning by explaining how to use the cursor ('pass the returned nextCursor to continue') and that results are paginated, which links limit and cursor. This enhances the schema descriptions rather than merely repeating them.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('cash movements') with a clear scope ('deposits, withdrawals, fees and interest') and ordering ('newest first'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_positions and list_dividends by focusing on cash movements that positions do not account for.

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 provides explicit use cases ('how much have I deposited' and 'explain a change in cash that positions do not account for'). While it doesn't name alternative tools, the use-case framing naturally steers away from positions and dividends. Could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use it, but the guidance is clear.

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