Get transactions

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

With no annotations to carry the safety profile, the description adds meaningful behavior: signed amounts, newest-first ordering, default date range, limited bank history, and continuation-based pagination. It does not detail error behavior or output shape, but the core operational traits are disclosed.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope/order, sign convention, default range, history limits, and pagination. Core facts are front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important operational context: ordering, sign convention, defaults, and continuation. It does not enumerate return fields, but the schema already documents parameters and the core call behavior is clear.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the continuation mechanism, the 30-day default context, and the practical bank history limit, which helps an agent decide parameters correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it fetches transactions for one account, with ordering ('newest first'). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_balances or list_accounts without opening the schema.

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 establishes clear context: use it for a single account's transaction history, defaulting to 30 days, and mentions pagination for longer histories. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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