История выплат

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists returned fields and does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, whether it includes pending or completed payouts, or any side effects. It is a read-only history tool, but that is not stated. The description adds little beyond the obvious.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key fields. There is no fluff or redundancy. It earns its place by communicating the essential information without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple listing with 4 documented parameters) and lack of an output schema, the description is notably sparse. It does not explain how payouts differ from transactions, what statuses exist, or how to filter effectively. It also does not mention default pagination or date range handling, relying entirely on the schema. For a tool with many sibling history tools, this is insufficient.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (to, from, skipCount, maxResultCount), so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters; it simply repeats the field names in a different form. No extra semantics are provided.

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 (payouts to merchant) and lists the key attributes (amount, status, date, involved terminals). It distinguishes this tool from generic transactions or finance summaries, though it could be more explicit about the 'history' aspect. The verb is implied (view/list) but clear enough.

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 like wata_transactions_list or wata_finance_summary. The description does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent would have to infer its usage from the name and context.

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