Consultar movimientos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose real behavior: it auto-discovers accounts, defaults to a summary (per-account totals plus the 25 most recent), and warns about volume for long ranges. It omits permissions/rate-limit context, but the default-vs-detail behavior is well covered.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the default behavior, then the caution. Every clause 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return shape (totals per account plus 25 most recent) and the volume tradeoff, so an agent can call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around the tipo enum semantics and any account filtering, but the essentials are present.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema for 'detalle' by explaining what the default summary actually contains and when switching to detail is unwise. The 'tipo' enum and its default are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb+resource: transactions ('movimientos') across all accounts within a date range, and notes it auto-discovers accounts. Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like saldos or listar_cuentas, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete condition for using the detail mode: request detail only for short ranges because long ranges return thousands of records. It does not, however, contrast with sibling tools (saldos, saldos_historicos) to help the agent pick between them.

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