mercury_list_transactions

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

The description discloses that the operation returns a JSON object with specific fields (id, amount, status, etc.) and that filtering is server-side. This adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, confirming safe read behavior.

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 concise and well-structured with three clear sections: general purpose, usage guidance, and return format. Every sentence is informative and free of fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides a clear representation of the return object. With 100% schema parameter coverage and strong annotations, the description completes the picture for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

Although the input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, the description adds value by grouping filter parameters (status, start, end, search, limit, offset) and indicating they are server-side. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 lists transactions for a Mercury deposit account with optional filters. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like mercury_list_credit_transactions and mercury_list_treasury_transactions, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 includes 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE' sections, providing explicit guidance on appropriate use cases and naming alternatives. This directly helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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