Get Debts

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 implies a read-only operation ('List'), but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what 'open debts or loans' entails (e.g., status filters, date ranges). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('List open debts or loans') and adds necessary scope ('tracked in a specific wallet'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, error handling) and usage guidelines compared to siblings, which are needed for full contextual understanding despite the simple schema.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'walletId' documented as 'Wallet identifier'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List') and resource ('open debts or loans'), and specifies scope ('tracked in a specific wallet'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_debt_transactions' or 'get_transactions', which might also retrieve debt-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides minimal context by mentioning 'in a specific wallet', but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_debt_transactions' or 'get_transactions'. There are no usage exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent with little direction.

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