Search 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 mentions the tool is a 'free-form search' and lists some filter types, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, or what format the results take. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted text, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 moderate complexity (search with filters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains the purpose and usage context well, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like result format, pagination, or error conditions that would be important for a search operation. The description is functional but leaves gaps in the complete context needed for optimal tool 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by listing specific filter examples (walletId, categoryId, keyword, parties) beyond what's in the schema's generic 'Arbitrary filter object' description, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 tool's purpose as 'Free-form search across transactions using optional filters' which specifies both the verb (search) and resource (transactions). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning keyword/label search vs date-range fetch, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools like 'get_transactions' that might handle date-range queries.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'when no date range is given or when doing a keyword/label search instead of a date-range fetch.' This gives clear context for usage, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or specify when NOT to use it beyond the date-range scenario.

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