Get Transactions

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 states the tool fetches transactions but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool that likely accesses sensitive financial data.

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 states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy for an agent 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., transaction list format, error handling) or behavioral aspects like authentication needs. Given the complexity of financial data and lack of structured fields, more context is needed for effective use.

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 clear documentation of all three parameters (walletId, startDate, endDate). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage without adding value.

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 ('fetch') and resource ('transactions for a wallet between two dates'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'search_transactions' or 'get_related_transactions_by_wallet', which appear to serve similar functions.

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 'search_transactions' or 'get_related_transactions_by_wallet'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether the wallet must exist or be accessible, leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.

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