nwc_list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation and the description adds filter semantics, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, return format, or explicitly state that it is non-mutating. This is adequate but not rich in 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no redundant words. Every clause adds useful information (resource, filters). This is optimally concise.

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?

The tool has 6 optional parameters, all fully documented in the schema, and no output schema. The description sufficiently conveys that the tool lists filtered transactions. It could mention pagination (limit/offset) or the response shape for full completeness, but the schema already covers parameter semantics, and the operation is simple enough that the description meets the bar.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all six parameters. The description only restates the filtering concepts already present in the schema (time range → from/until, direction → type, unpaid → unpaid). It adds no additional syntax, default-value, or relationship context, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('transactions on the connected wallet'), and clearly enumerates the filtering axes (time range, direction, unpaid invoices). This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nwc_lookup_invoice, which targets a single invoice.

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: it lists transactions and supports filters. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., for a single invoice, use lookup_invoice). The absence of exclusions or alternative references drops it from a 5.

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