Get Transaction History

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details not in annotations: the result is paginated, each entry contains specific fields, and there is a rate limit of 6 req/1m. It does not fully explain cursor mechanics or default time scope, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two substantive sentences plus a one-sentence rate limit. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists return fields and a key constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

The tool has no required parameters and no output schema, so the description's list of return fields helps fill that gap. It specifies the transaction types, pagination, and rate limit. It does not state the default time behavior (e.g., all history if no 'time' given) or ordering, but overall it is nearly complete for a well-annotated list 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for time, limit, and cursor. The description's mention of 'paginated' aligns with the cursor parameter but adds no additional semantic detail about the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('paginated history of account transactions') and enumerates the transaction types (deposits, withdrawals, fees, transfers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_historical_orders (orders) and get_account_summary (summary), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context: it is for retrieving transaction history, with examples of what counts as a transaction. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource specification ('account transactions') strongly implies when to use it versus other get_* siblings. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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