Get Related Transactions By Category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'List transactions' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted verbiage.

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. It doesn't explain what 'linked' means, how results are returned, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely returns a list of transactions, more context on behavior and output is needed to be fully helpful to an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'categoryId' documented as 'Category identifier'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a filtering by category. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra details like format examples or constraints.

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 ('List') and resource ('transactions linked to a category across wallets'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from generic 'get_transactions' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_related_transactions' or 'get_related_transactions_by_wallet' among siblings, which would require a 5.

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' or 'search_transactions'. It mentions 'across wallets' but doesn't clarify if this is a key differentiator or when to prefer it over other transaction-fetching tools.

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