get_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return format, default behavior (last 50 transactions per account), and limitations per connector. It lacks an explicit read-only assertion, but the informative nature compensates.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose first, followed by usage, output format, inputs, and caveats. It is slightly verbose but every section adds information; could be trimmed slightly.

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?

Absent an output schema, the description fully explains the return fields (type, symbol, quantity, etc.) and covers connector-specific behavior. It includes necessary caveats (V0, not financial advice) making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 the description adds value by providing examples (e.g., time shorthand '24h', account_id format) and elaborating on default behavior. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 explicitly states it returns transaction history across configured accounts, listing types (trades, deposits, etc.) and providing example user queries. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_holdings or get_pnl.

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 explicit usage examples ('Use this when the user asks: ...') and covers connector-specific caveats. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of alternatives.

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