Get interim transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns...' without mentioning read-only status, pagination, auth requirements, or any side effects. The endpoint path is added context but does not explain behavior beyond the default 'get' action.

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 efficiently states purpose. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and several siblings; while every word earns its place, important information is missing that would make it more useful.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a family of similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter meanings, usage guidance, and any indication of the response format or expected behavior, making it hard for an agent to call correctly.

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 0% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (card, date, filters). The schema provides types and a pattern for date, but no meaning or usage guidance. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states the specific verb 'Returns' and the precise resource 'interim transactions', and even includes the endpoint path '/statements/interim/transactions'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'final transactions' or 'balances'.

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?

Usage is implicitly conveyed by the name and description: if you need interim transactions, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over final transactions or balances, nor any context about interim vs final data.

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