list_conversionsList one cursor page of conversion jobs visible to the MainBook account. Pass the returned next_cursor to continue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Jobs on this page, from 1 to 100. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque next_cursor from the previous page. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| units | No | pages | |
| conversions | Yes | ||
| next_cursor | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful context: the list is scoped to the MainBook account and it returns only one cursor page at a time. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 exactly two sentences, the first stating the purpose and scope, the second providing the primary usage instruction. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or 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 simple list tool with two parameters and an output schema (indicated present), the description covers the core purpose, pagination pattern, and account scope. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema handles that. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for both limit and cursor with clear descriptions. The tool description reinforces the cursor usage ('Pass the returned next_cursor to continue') but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb 'List' with the resource 'conversion jobs' and immediately clarifies the scope ('one cursor page', 'visible to the MainBook account'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_conversion (single item) and convert_bank_statement (different action).
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 description explicitly tells the agent to use the returned next_cursor to continue pagination, which is a clear usage pattern. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., 'for a single conversion use get_conversion instead'), but the context signals (sibling names) make the distinction inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct, non-overlapping purpose: convert initiates a full workflow, get_balance queries credits, get_conversion retrieves a specific job's state, and list_conversions enumerates jobs. No ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: convert_bank_statement, get_balance, get_conversion, list_conversions. The convention is uniform and predictable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a bank statement converter: one primary conversion action plus three supporting query/status operations. No bloat or missing core functionality.
The set covers the full conversion lifecycle (create, upload, start, poll, retrieve) along with credit checking and job listing. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit cancel/delete operation, but this is not a critical workflow dead-end.