Операции по кошельку

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that the tool is read-oriented (history), but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, return format, or any limits beyond the schema's maxResultCount. This is too sparse for an unannotated tool.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the tool's core purpose)Skip? Actually the description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. It loses one point because it is so minimal that it sacrifices contextual completeness in favor of brevity.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the response contains, how paging works despite skipCount/maxResultCount, whether the period filters are optional, or how this relates to similar sibling tools. The schema covers parameter inventory, but not the operational context.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds that accountId comes from wata_wallet_balances, but this duplicates the schema's own accountId description. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not add significant meaning.

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 identifies the resource ('wallet operations') and the intent ('история операций' – history), making clear this is a list/history tool. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'List' and does not name sibling alternatives, but the plural 'operations' plus the accountId dependency imply the list semantics.

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 only usage hint is that accountId comes from wata_wallet_balancesholidays. There is no guidance on when to use this tool over siblings such as wata_wallet_operation_get or wata_transactions_list, and no exclusions or conditions are provided.

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