Get Money Lover transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fetch', which implies read-only, but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, authentication requirements, pagination, or return format. The agent lacks critical context about what happens when this tool is called.

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, efficient sentence with zero redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action and scope, and every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention return format (e.g., list vs single object), pagination, error handling, or whether the token parameter is ever required. An agent would lack sufficient information to correctly interpret the response.

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 all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning ('between two dates' clarifies the date range, 'for a wallet' reinforces walletId), but does not provide new details beyond what the schema already contains.

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 'Fetch transactions for a wallet between two dates' clearly states the verb (fetch), resource (transactions), and scope (wallet + date range). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_wallets and get_categories, which target different resources.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like preview_transaction or add_transaction. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate without explicit context or exclusions.

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