Get Transaction History

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a read-only operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, authentication needs, or performance considerations. The description fails to provide any extra behavioral transparency.

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 sentence that clearly and concisely states the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it appropriately concise.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally explain what the response contains, but it does not. Additionally, the lack of comparison to sibling tools and any caveats about data volume or filters makes the description incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's place.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. However, the phrase 'optional filters' merely restates what the schema already conveys and does not add deeper semantic meaning about parameter relationships or constraints.

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 uses the verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'transaction history for accounts.' It is specific and direct, but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_trades' which may also provide transaction data.

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 such as get_trades or get_account_summary. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool should be preferred.

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