ameria-bank

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context: the prerequisite lookup flow and where accountId comes from, plus the amount filter behavior. It doesn't cover pagination behavior, but schema param descriptions handle that.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, followed by the prerequisite. No filler. The example ID is helpful rather than wasteful, though marginally redundant with the schema example.

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 readOnly/idempotent annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and filter semantics adequately. Pagination is left to the schema, which is appropriate; nothing critical for a correct call is missing.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description still adds value by giving a concrete example ('31023550200') and clarifying accountId provenance from cards/accounts, reinforcing the schema's parenthetical. Slightly beyond baseline but not exhaustive.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get past events (transactions)') scoped to 'a specific Ameria Bank account,' and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_transactions/search_transactions by its account+amount filtering. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite tool ('Use get_accounts_and_cards first to find the accountId') and the exact source field, and states the filtering conditions. This is actionable when-to-use guidance, not mere implication.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it returns balances, card types, statuses, overdraft info and product IDs, and notably that results span both Ameria cards and linked external cards. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the added scope detail is meaningful.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return contents, and the ordering instruction. The most actionable guidance (call this first) is placed last where it caps the read.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so well, listing the concrete fields. Minor gaps remain around pagination or failure behavior, but for a zero-param discovery call this is nearly complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing filter semantics that the empty schema does not support.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (get all accounts and cards), names the source system, and enumerates the data returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the discovery step preceding get_available_balance and get_account_events.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this FIRST to discover available account/card IDs before using get_available_balance or get_account_events,' naming the alternatives and the condition that selects them. The sequencing guidance is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dependency on get_accounts_and_cards and the shape of the returned figures, but no auth requirements, rate limits, or caching/freshness behavior.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose plus return contents are front-loaded before the prerequisite note. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 usefully enumerates the returned balance fields and covers the required-argument dependency, which is what an agent needs to call it. Minor gaps remain around error cases (invalid productId, mismatched productType) but the definition is otherwise sufficient for a simple read tool.

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%, and the schema already explains productId sourcing from get_accounts_and_cards as well as the CARD/ACCOUNT enum and its default. The description only restates that the product is a card or account, so it adds nothing beyond the structured fields — baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed balance breakdown for a specific card or account') and enumerates the returned fields (balance, available balance, frozen balance, offline available). It is clearly distinct from transaction- and event-oriented siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite flow: 'Use get_accounts_and_cards first to find the product ID,' which tells the agent how to obtain the required argument. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or which sibling to prefer for other balance-like queries.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the default 30-day window and the fact that pagination termination is signalled by a hasNext field in the response — valuable since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing the full response shape (transaction fields, totals, auth/rate limits), so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and default behavior, then pagination, then the alternative-tool routing. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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 zero-required-param read-only listing tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the remaining agent needs — defaults and pagination termination — are both addressed. Missing only the response payload shape (what a transaction record contains), which matters somewhat given the absence of an output schema.

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% and each of the four parameters already documents its format, bounds and default in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's date-range default largely restates the fromDate/toDate schema defaults rather than adding syntax or edge-case guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get transaction history from Ameria Bank') plus the scope of the return ('a page of transactions within a date range'). It also names the sibling it is not ('prefer search_transactions'), so an agent can distinguish it from search_transactions without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit defaults ('Defaults to last 30 days'), pagination instructions ('Use page parameter to paginate — check hasNext'), and a concrete when-not-to-use rule routing merchant lookups to search_transactions. Nothing about selecting this tool is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower — yet the description adds a genuinely non-obvious constraint: the search runs against a single page only. That caveat plus the case-insensitive matching rule materially change how an agent must call the tool and are not derivable from the annotations or 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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the critical single-page caveat, then a concrete usage example. The most important constraint (single-page scope) is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 and a mutation-free read tool, the description covers purpose, matching semantics, date scoping, and pagination behavior — everything needed to invoke it correctly. It does not describe the shape of returned transaction records, but for a search over an annotated read-only endpoint that is a minor gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by expanding what 'query' actually matches — merchant names, transfer descriptions, beneficiary names — beyond the schema's terser 'transaction details and beneficiary name', and by tying the date parameters to the keyword search.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Ameria Bank transactions'), names the searchable fields (merchant names, transfer descriptions, beneficiary names), and scopes it to a date range. The keyword-search framing cleanly separates it from the sibling get_transactions, which implies unfiltered retrieval.

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?

Provides an explicit usage example ('how much did I spend on YANDEX this month?') and operational guidance to iterate pages or raise page size when full coverage is needed. It stops short of naming get_transactions as the alternative for unfiltered listing, so routing between siblings is left partly to inference.

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