Get Transfer Records

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It appropriately mentions the required API keys and scope (caller's accounts), and 'fetch' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose pagination defaults, result ordering, or any potential side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the primary action and scope, the second covers the authentication requirement. No filler or redundant information.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the return structure undefined and does not mention pagination behavior, even though pagination parameters exist. However, the schema covers all parameters and the purpose/scope are clear, making it adequate but with gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already explains all six parameters. The description adds only a general reference to 'optional filters' without enriching parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'fetch' and clearly identifies the resource: 'records of transfers between the caller's accounts' with an example (spot <-> futures). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_subaccount_transfer_records, which deals with subaccount transfers.

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 phrase 'between the caller's accounts' implies the tool is for the user's own transfers, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_subaccount_transfer_records or get_wallet_activity. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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