История конвертаций

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The phrase 'terminal revenue conversions' gives subject matter but does not explicitly state that the tool returns a list, that it is read-only, whether any filtering is implicit, or what happens for empty ranges; only the word 'history' in the title hints at non-mutating behavior.

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 a single, short, front-loaded phrase; it wastes no words and gives the principal subject quickly. It is economical though lacking certain key details, so the structure itself is good.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, a 4-parameter history/list tool needs a contract explanation. The description only hints at result fields, and never clarifies response shape, default date semantics, or how pagination/system interacting with period filters, making it insufficient for confident invocation.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with concise descriptions at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning to the date-range or pagination parameters; it only previews result fields, which is not enough to elevate the parameter semantics score.

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 clearly identifies the resource as terminal-revenue conversions and even names key output fields (exchange rate and final amount). The title 'История конвертаций' supplies the missing verb, making clear this is a history/list operation and distinguishing it from transaction or payout history siblings.

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?

No guidance is given for when this tool should be used instead of sibling finance/history tools such as wata_terminals_finance, wata_payouts_history, or wata_transactions_list. The description does not even state a typical use case or implied date-range workflow.

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