Exportar Transações

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions safe count and export endpoint but omits details on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. This is insufficient for a mutation-like export tool.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. While it saves words, it sacrifices parameter details. It is efficient but could benefit from a brief list of key parameters.

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?

Despite a complex input schema with 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers only two parameters implicitly. The output schema exists but is not described. The tool's behavior in export mode and limits are unexplained, making it insufficient for effective agent use.

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%, and the description only explains count_only. It does not clarify the purpose or constraints of date_start, date_end, account_ids, credit_card_ids, sample_limit, or include_field_summary, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.

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 inspects/exports transactions in a date range, distinguishing between a safe count mode and export by setting count_only:false. This provides a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from siblings like search_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 explains the default behavior (safe count with field summary) and how to switch to export mode. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over sibling tools like search_transactions or create_transaction, leaving room for ambiguity.

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