get_cashflowFREE (operator). List recent money-in / money-out / markup ledger entries from V7 cashflow store.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max entries to return (default 25) | |
| direction | No | Optional filter by ledger direction |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only listing action and identifies the data source, and it hints at an operator-level access requirement. However, it does not disclose output shape, ordering guarantees behind 'recent', pagination behavior, or permission details.
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 compact sentence with no filler. The access hint is front-loaded, and every remaining word adds meaning to the core action and resource.
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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to call it: it states the action, resource, and filter categories. It lacks explicit output field details and ordering semantics, but that is a minor gap for a list-style 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?
The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description maps the ledger categories to the enum values (money-in/out/markup → in/out/markup) and loosely motivates the limit parameter via 'recent', but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource: recent money-in / money-out / markup ledger entries from the V7 cashflow store. It clearly distinguishes this from financial siblings like get_pnl by focusing on raw ledger entries rather than computed profit/loss numbers.
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 about when to choose this tool over related alternatives such as get_pnl or get_paywall_status. The 'FREE (operator)' prefix hints at an access or cost characteristic, but it does not explain selection criteria, prerequisites, or when this tool should be avoided.
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.
The core dispatcher tools are distinct, but the 84 auto-discovered wrappers contain dozens of near-identical news, weather, and translation endpoints. An agent cannot reliably tell many of these apart without reading provider-specific details, and misselection is likely.
Core tools use a readable verb_noun pattern, but most tools are machine-generated `x402_<domain>_<path>_<number>` names with opaque numeric suffixes. The two naming schemes are mixed, and the generated names are not intuitive.
95 tools is an extreme mismatch for a coherent MCP surface. The bulk are auto-registered third-party proxies that duplicate the same few categories, creating massive prompt bloat and selection overhead.
For an x402 dispatcher, the core lifecycle is well covered: discovery, search, quote, route-and-call, stats, paywall status, and cashflow/P&L. Minor gaps such as no deregistration or detailed per-transaction drill-down exist, but main workflows do not dead-end.