get_funding_payments

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first), optional filtering, and authentication requirement. However, it does not mention rate limits, default behavior, or error states. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and result. Every word adds value: 'newest first' and 'optionally filtered' are essential. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, ordering, filter option, and auth. Missing details like default limit or pagination are minor given the schema already specifies the limit parameter.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the critical ordering context ('newest first') not present in the schema, which helps the agent understand the result format. It also confirms optional filtering, adding value beyond the schema.

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 retrieves the authenticated account's funding-payment history with newest-first ordering and optional market filtering. While it is specific to funding payments, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_funding_history or get_funding_samples.

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 mentions the requirement for API credentials, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools (e.g., get_funding_history, get_funding_samples) or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are given.

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