sc_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only 'List' operation but does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting, time formatting, or scope despite parameters like cursor, page_size, and to_time/from_time. This is minimal for a no-annotation tool.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the use cases are concise. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a 7-parameter tool. It lacks parameter semantics, pagination guidance, and disambiguation from the similarly named sibling sc_transaction. An agent would need to inspect the schema deeply and still might not understand expected date or filter formats.

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% and the description does not explain any of the seven parameters. The phrase 'optional filters' only hints at their existence and provides no meaning for isin, cursor, to_time, from_time, page_size, type_filter, or portfolio_id.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Scalable Capital broker transactions', with optional filters. It is specific and actionable, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'sc_transaction', which could plausibly be the single-transaction counterpart.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use for reconciliation, tax analysis, or reviewing trade history.' This gives clear context and target use cases, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions versus sc_transaction.

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