Поиск транзакций (публичный API)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one important behavioral trait: cursor-based pagination and how to obtain the next page via cursorId and cursorAmount from previous response fields. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like default result limits, whether filters are all optional, or any auth requirements.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second conveys the critical pagination behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 13 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the most important invocation detail (cursor pagination) but leaves the agent to infer much of the rest from schema property names and enums. It is adequate but not complete; absent return-shape details and more explicit filter semantics.

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 description coverage is 62%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics for cursor-related parameters by explaining their relationship to nextCursorId and nextCursorAmount, which goes beyond the schema. But it does not compensate for undocumented params like orderId, amountTo, or amountFrom.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Ищет транзакции терминала' (searches terminal transactions), which clearly identifies the action and scope. The title adds 'публичный API' to further characterize it, and the name distinguishes it from single-transaction getters like wata_acq_transaction_get, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling list 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wata_transactions_list or wata_acq_transaction_get. The only usage hint is the cursor pagination instruction, which is about how to page through results, not about selecting this tool over siblings.

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