list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('Returns up to 10 records per page; increase `skip` by 10 to fetch the next page') and explains key fields and statuses. It also clarifies the distinction between receipts and transactions. It doesn't explicitly state that it's a read-only operation, but that is implied by 'list' and the absence of modification language. Overall, it offers substantial behavioral context beyond the 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 reasonably concise given its informational load. It leads with the primary purpose, then provides field context, a note on receipts vs transactions, and pagination details. No sentences are wasted, though the field list is somewhat long and could be trimmed if an output schema existed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the key return fields (amount, description, kind, status, etc.) and explaining pagination. For a simple list endpoint with a single optional parameter, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further documentation.

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 only parameter `skip` is already well-documented in the schema (description covers 100%). The description adds a concrete usage hint: 'increase `skip` by 10 to fetch the next page.' This reinforces the pagination mechanism and gives practical guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'List wallet ledger transactions for the API key account.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings, especially list_receipts, by contrasting 'receipts record what was CHARGED; transactions record money MOVING in a wallet.' This makes the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'The best endpoint for account statements, wallet history, and payout reconciliation.' It also provides a clear exclusion criterion by contrasting transactions with receipts, telling users to use receipts when they need charging records. This is strong when-to-use guidance.

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