Get Pending Transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful clarification that trades are read-only and that the server never proposes, accepts, or rejects trades. This prevents an agent from assuming it can act on the returned trade proposals through this tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and output behavior, and the second adds a critical read-only clarification that earns its place. Nothing extraneous is included.

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?

For a read-only list tool with zero required parameters, fully documented schema, rich safety annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool 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%, with each parameter (sport, season, league_id) having a clear description and default value. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the schema carries the full burden, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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?

Description names a specific verb and resource: 'Pending waiver claims and trade proposals.' It also distinguishes itself from the broader sibling get_transactions by explicitly scoping to pending items, so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns.

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 makes clear this is the read-only view of trades and waiver claims, contrasting with mutation siblings like waiver_claim or cancel_claim. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer when to use get_pending versus mutation or broader transaction tools.

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