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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the tool returns multiple balance types and defines the type codes. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but that is implicit and acceptable for a get operation. It adds useful context beyond the schema, such as the source of account_id.

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 succinct and front-loaded, using two sentences and a brief code block for the type codes. Every sentence adds value with no redundant text.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown in detail), we don't need description of return values. The tool is simple (one required parameter) and the description covers the essential semantics, including the meaning of type codes. It is complete for a straightforward get-balances endpoint.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain account_id (source from list_accounts) and defines the type parameter even though 'type' is not present in the provided schema. This discrepancy between description and schema introduces potential confusion about whether the type parameter is actually accepted, lowering the score.

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 'Get the balances (booked, available, ...) of one account' which uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_accounts, get_transactions, and list_connections. The mention of ISO 20022 balance codes adds specificity.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'account_id comes from list_accounts', guiding the agent to obtain the identifier from a specific prior step. It also explains the meaning of the optional type parameter, though it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, which is fairly obvious given the sibling set.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses newest-first ordering, inclusive date semantics, page size default and maximum, offset-based pagination, and a practical context-window warning ('keep small to protect context'). This goes well beyond the schema.

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 first line is a crisp summary, and the Args section is tightly formatted with no filler. Every sentence earns its place by conveying scope, defaults, limits, or safety guidance.

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 that an output schema exists, return fields need not be restated. The description covers prerequisites, date range behavior, pagination, and resource-protection guidance, leaving no meaningful gaps for a read-only transaction listing tool.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: account_id's source, date_from/date_to as optional inclusive ISO dates, limit's default/max/contextual caution, and offset's pagination role. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get statement transactions for one account, newest first.' It clearly identifies that this tool retrieves transactions for a single account and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_accounts, get_balances, and list_connections.

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?

Provides clear usage context: one account, optional inclusive date range, and pagination. It also points to the prerequisite 'Account id from list_accounts.' While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, the purpose and sibling set make the intended use clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so by revealing that 'Sensitive fields are decrypted in-process from the zero-knowledge envelopes,' which is non-obvious and important context for the agent. It does not mention every possible behavioral trait, but it covers the most relevant security-sensitive aspect.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the purpose and returned fields, the second provides essential security context, and the third gives actionable downstream usage. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no parameters, an output schema is present, and the description covers purpose, fields, security behavior, and how to use the result with sibling tools, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. No significant gaps remain.

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?

The input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the zero-parameter baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing ambiguous to clarify.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List the user's bank accounts with balances, IBAN, owner and bank name.' It clearly defines the tool's scope and differentiates it from siblings by noting that account IDs should be used with get_balances/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 description tells the agent how to use the output: 'Use an account's ``id`` for get_balances / get_transactions.' This gives downstream usage context, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_connections or state when not to use this tool.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral nuance: expired/needs_reconnect connections require re-consent elsewhere and that this server cannot restore consent. This exceeds a bare 'list' complete with an important limitation, though it doesn't cover all potential behaviors (e.g., pagination, filtering).

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 sentences, both essential. The first defines the resource and content, the second adds critical status-related caveat. No redundancy or filler.

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 no-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context: purpose, key fields, and an important behavioral constraint. It might mention pagination or ordering, but these are likely in the output schema, so the description is complete enough.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the default baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the fields returned even though no parameters exist, making the tool's behavior clear without parameter explanations.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('List the user's bank connections (consents)') and enumerates the data returned (status, validity, last sync). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools focused on accounts, balances, and 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 description implies usage via the domain (connections vs. accounts) and explains the implication of expired status, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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