wapupay_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool is a read operation ("Get") and lists transaction types it can retrieve. However, it does not disclose required permissions, response format, error cases, or whether the returned data differs by type. Adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentences that immediately state the purpose and transaction types. No filler or redundant information. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., fields, structure). It lists transaction types but lacks details on return values, making it incomplete for an agent that needs to 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% (the `id` parameter is described). The description adds that the id can be UUID or numeric, which is already in the schema description. It does not provide additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 retrieves a single WapuPay transaction by id, listing possible transaction types (funding, fiat transfer, refund). This distinguishes it from siblings like wapupay_transactions (likely a list) and other related tools.

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 implies usage when you have a specific transaction id and need details, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like wapupay_transactions for listing. Usage context is only implicit.

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