mercury_list_treasury_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not repeat these. It adds the return structure format, providing useful behavioral context without contradictions.

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 with three short sections, front-loaded and to the point. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers use cases, sibling differentiation, return structure, and required parameters. Missing details like limit/offset defaults are minor. Overall sufficient for confident usage.

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 has 60% description coverage; the description does not add parameter explanations beyond the schema. The schema already describes accountId and date filters, but limit/offset lack descriptions. The description does not compensate for these gaps, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List transactions for a Mercury Treasury account' and provides specific examples like sweeps and dividend accruals. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternatives for deposit accounts (mercury_list_transactions) and IO Credit (mercury_list_credit_transactions).

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE' sections give clear context and direct the agent to alternative tools, ensuring correct tool selection.

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