Get Related Transactions By Wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions grouping 'by relationship' which adds some context, but doesn't describe what relationships exist, whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, how results are formatted, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for this tool's complexity and front-loads the essential information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'grouped by relationship' means in practice, what the output format looks like, or provide any behavioral context. Given the lack of structured data, the description should do more to compensate.

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 already documents the single 'walletId' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 wallet' with the specific grouping 'by relationship', which distinguishes it from generic transaction listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_related_transactions' or 'get_related_transactions_by_category' beyond the 'by wallet' specification.

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_transactions', 'get_related_transactions', or 'get_related_transactions_by_category'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases for this grouping approach.

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