Список транзакций

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the cursor-based pagination mechanism and implies a list return, but does not mention response structure, ordering, or any constraints beyond pagination. This adds some value but is insufficient for a list endpoint with no output schema.

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 long, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the pagination usage stated efficiently. Every sentence contributes to understanding, with no wasted words.

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 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and many sibling list/count tools, the description is too sparse. It lacks details about response format, default ordering, or any caveats about the transaction list. The pagination guidance is helpful but does not cover other aspects an agent would need to properly invoke and interpret the results.

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% — every parameter has a description in the schema, including the cursor fields which already say they come from the previous response. The description's mention of pagination adds minimal value beyond what the schema already conveys, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 states 'Транзакции мерчанта с курсорной пагинацией' (merchant transactions with cursor pagination), specifying the resource (transactions), scope (merchant), and a distinguishing feature (cursor pagination). This differentiates it from siblings like wata_transaction_get (single transaction) and wata_transactions_counts (counts).

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 provides guidance on using pagination (passing nextCursorId/nextCursorDate from the previous response) but offers no direction on when to use this list tool versus alternatives such as wata_transaction_get or wata_transactions_counts. There is no explicit or implicit comparison to sibling tools or conditions for selection.

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