Get Account Pending Transactions

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: pending entries can change or vanish before settling, and pending entries carry no id — both are non-obvious traits that affect how an agent should handle results.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the volatility caveat, then the return shape. Every sentence is informative and there's 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?

Because an output schema exists, the detailed field-by-field return description is largely redundant, though it clarifies semantics the schema can't (e.g., negative amounts, currency may be None). Missing is explicit positioning relative to txn_get_pending_transactions; otherwise an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, account_id, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description implies single-account scoping but adds no format, source, or validation guidance for the Akahu account id. Baseline 3 applies.

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: list pending, not-yet-settled transactions scoped to one account. It's clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identically named sibling txn_get_pending_transactions, so an agent can't tell from the description which is account-scoped and which is global.

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?

Usage is only implied by the parenthetical '(not-yet-settled)' and the note that pending entries affect available balance. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'for all-account pending use X instead', and the closest alternative is a sibling with an almost identical name.

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