List unmatched transfers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: newest-first ordering, a hard cap of 100, the returned field set, the sharedWithStores ownership ambiguity semantics, and the error contract ('rate_limited with the seconds to wait'). It stops short of saying whether results are paginated past the 100 cap, which is the one operational gap.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and every sentence carries usable information — field list, ownership semantics, the no-attach rule, the invoice-lookup route, multi-store behavior, error shape. It loses a point for being one dense comma-spliced block with no structural breaks, making the field enumeration and the behavioral rules harder to scan than they need to be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden — and it does, naming every field plus the non-obvious sharedWithStores interpretation. For a single optional param, read-only list tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call or interpret it is missing.

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% and the single param is already documented as 'store id or exact store name from list_stores'. The description still adds meaning the schema does not carry: omitting store with several stores means every store is queried and each transfer is listed once, not duplicated.

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 and resource ('Lists payments that reached the merchant's own Tron wallet but matched no invoice') plus the likely cause and ordering. It is immediately distinguishable from list_invoices and get_invoice, which appear later only as follow-up tools.

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?

Explicitly says what you cannot do ('You cannot attach a transfer to an invoice: tell the merchant to do it in the Stablevoy dashboard, Unmatched transfers section') and names the alternatives to use instead ('get_invoice or list_invoices to find the invoice the buyer meant'). It also explains the no-store multi-store path, which is the only real selection ambiguity for this tool.

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