List Money Lover categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' indicates a read operation and the wallet scope is clear, but the description does not disclose response shape, error behavior, authentication requirements, or whether default categories are returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the key scoping constraint is stated directly.

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?

For a simple list operation with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient: an agent knows what to call and with what scope. However, the absence of annotations and output schema leaves some gaps around return format and behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the contextual link 'for a specific wallet' to walletId, while token is already documented in the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a clear resource ('categories') for a specific wallet, so the purpose is obvious and distinct from sibling tools like get_wallets or get_transactions. It does not explicitly contrast itself with a sibling, 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?

Usage is implied by the wording: an agent would use this when it needs categories for a wallet. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives.

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