Get final transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only states that the tool returns end-of-day transactions. It does not mention read-only behavior, authentication requirements, pagination, response format, timezone/date semantics, or any operational caveats, so the behavioral picture is minimal.

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 efficient sentence that gets straight to the point, names the exact endpoint, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for the information it provides.

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 three parameters (including a nested filters object), no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It does not explain the relationship between card, date, and filters, nor describe the response shape or how final transactions differ from interim ones operationally.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning for any of the three parameters. The description does not explain what 'card' refers to, what 'date' means in relation to end-of-day transactions, or what 'filters' can contain. The description fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource ('end-of-day transactions from /statements/final/transactions'). The 'end-of-day' and 'final' wording helps distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_interim_transactions and get_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?

The 'end-of-day' phrasing implies this is for finalized daily statements, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of get_transactions or get_interim_transactions. No alternatives or exclusions are named, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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