ghl_marketplace_get_charges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the exact auth mechanism, token-type rejection, required scope, and that pagination must be driven manually via skip/limit to retrieve full result sets.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then structured lines for endpoint, auth, scope, and pagination — each line carries actionable information. The 'source: v3/marketplace-v3.json' provenance is minor noise that doesn't help an agent decide or call.

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-parameter, filter-only list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the credentials model, scope, and paging behavior an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Return shape is undocumented but an output schema is absent and the operation is a straightforward list, so the gap is minor.

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 all seven parameters are already documented, including the startDate/endDate pairing and meterId source. The description only adds the paging instruction for skip/limit and nothing about the filter parameters, so it sits at the baseline with schema doing the heavy lifting.

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 all wallet charges') and pins the exact endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling ghl_marketplace_get_specific_charge or ghl_marketplace_charge, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Prerequisites are explicit — Sub-Account (location) token, OAuth access token only, Private Integration Tokens rejected, charges.readonly scope — which tells the agent whether it can call at all. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this list tool over get_specific_charge or the delete/charge siblings, so selection guidance is only implied.

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