Счётчики транзакций по статусам

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it does state the core output (counts by status) but does not explain the result shape, whether the listed statuses are exhaustive, or how optional period parameters affect the count. No side effects or authorization details are mentioned, but for a simple counting tool the core behavior is adequately exposed.

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?

A single concise sentence with the key information front-loaded, followed by the status list. No filler or redundant clauses.

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?

The description is sufficient for a basic understanding but incomplete given no output schema and optional parameters: it does not specify the output keys, the default period when from/to are omitted, or how the counts relate to the transaction list sibling. For a two-parameter counting tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so the from/to parameters are already documented with formats and meanings. The description adds no parameter-level information and remains at the baseline.

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 tool as returning transaction counts grouped by status, and names the specific statuses (created, paid, pending, declined). Although it lacks a verb and is close to the title, it is unambiguous and distinguishable from wata_transactions_list and wata_transaction_get via the aggregation concept.

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 context is only implied: an agent can infer this is for status-count summaries rather than detailed listing or single-transaction lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives, and no guidance about date-range handling.

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