Get transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it 'returns' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any other behaviors such as pagination, error handling, rate limits, or side effects. Minimal context is provided beyond the core purpose.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose. It is free of redundant information and is appropriately concise for a tool that returns data.

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 description is severely incomplete for correct invocation. It does not describe the output format, the meaning of 'statement' relative to interim/final transactions, the purpose or structure of the 'filters' object, or how the date range interacts with card filtering. Given the lack of output schema and parameter descriptions, this is inadequate for an agent to use confidently.

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%, so the parameters have no descriptions. The description loosely mentions 'date range' and 'filtered cards', hinting at the from/to and card parameters, but does not explain the 'filters' object, the exact format of dates, or whether any parameters are required. It falls short of compensating 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 clearly states the tool returns statement transactions from the /statements endpoint, specifying filtering by date range or cards. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like privat24_business_get_interim_transactions or privat24_business_get_final_transactions, which also return transactions. Thus, it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other transaction-related siblings. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it over others.

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