Get Related 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 states the action ('fetch') but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'related/linked' means in practice. The description is minimal and leaves behavioral traits unclear.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose and follows with a brief parameter instruction, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that fetches related transactions. It lacks details on return values, error cases, relationship definitions, and behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 schema fully documents the 'ids' parameter. The description adds minimal value by specifying 'pass IDs as an array of strings', which is already implied by the schema. No additional semantic context is provided beyond the structured data.

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 verb ('fetch') and resource ('related/linked transactions') with a specific scope ('given one or more transaction IDs'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_transactions' by focusing on relationships, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_related_transactions_by_category' or 'get_related_transactions_by_wallet'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_related_transactions_by_category' or 'get_related_transactions_by_wallet', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context.

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