Get Transaction Splits

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description usefully discloses that unsplit transactions return an empty splits list and enumerates the fields returned per leg. It does not discuss error behavior for invalid IDs, but for a simple read tool this is a strong level of transparency.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences: one states the operation and input source, the other summarizes the return shape and the unsplit edge case. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the input source, the returned fields, and the empty-list edge case, while the readOnlyHint covers the safety profile.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining transaction_id. It adds meaningful context by specifying that the ID comes from get_transactions or search_transactions, which is exactly what the bare parameter name lacks.

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 ('Get split legs') and names the resource (transaction splits), while tying the transaction_id to get_transactions or search_transactions. This makes the tool's role clear against siblings like update_transaction_splits.

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 first sentence clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a transaction_id from get_transactions or search_transactions and need its split details. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for modifying splits, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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