List wallet transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context about the contents of the history (credits, debits, top-ups), which is useful, but it does not disclose behaviors like ordering, default pagination, or the impact of missing identifiers. With annotations covering the core safety aspects, this level of additional detail earns a 3.

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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes a parenthetical clarification of what counts as 'transactions'. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 a simple listing purpose with well-documented parameters and read-only annotations. The description covers the transaction categories but does not mention default pagination or output format, though the schema already provides pagination parameter details. It is arguably complete enough for a knowledgeable agent, but a hint about default sorting or result structure would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the description does not need to repeat those details. It adds the context that this is a client-specific transaction history, but does not provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already explains. Baseline 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 clearly specifies the verb 'List', the resource 'wallet transaction history', and the scope 'client's', with concrete examples of transaction types (credits, debits, top-ups). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_wallet_balance or refund_from_wallet, which serve different purposes.

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 for when to use this tool: to retrieve a client's wallet transaction history. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools for related but different needs, such as checking current balance.

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