list_transactions

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

The description mentions cursor-based pagination, a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose read-only nature, potential rate limits, or authentication requirements. The pagination detail provides some transparency but lacks completeness.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, though it could be slightly more structured by mentioning key parameters.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks information about response structure, prerequisites, or differentiation from similar list tools, which hinders correct agent invocation.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond stating the tool's overall purpose. Baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'transaction history', and specifies 'cursor-based pagination', which distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_transaction' (single transaction) and 'list_incoming_transactions' (incoming only).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'list_incoming_transactions' or other list tools. The description does not provide context on filtering or when to prefer this over others.

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