Get Transaction Search Config

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 describes the tool as a read operation ('Return'), which implies it is non-destructive and likely safe, but it does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned data. The description adds value by specifying the purpose but lacks detailed behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and relationship to another tool. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy, making it highly concise and effective.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does and its context with 'search_transactions', but it lacks details on output format, error cases, or prerequisites. For a simple read tool, this is acceptable but leaves some gaps, aligning with a score of 3.

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%, with the single parameter 'limit' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it mentions no parameters. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here since the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 ('Return') and the specific resource ('saved configuration options') with explicit details about what those options include ('labels, with-parties, saved filters'). It also distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'search_transactions' by specifying that these configurations are 'available for use with' that tool, making the relationship and differentiation clear.

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 clear context by linking this tool to 'search_transactions', implying it should be used to retrieve configurations before or in conjunction with that sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as whether other tools might provide similar configuration data, which prevents a perfect score.

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