Get detailed transaction history — deposits, deductions, transfers, refunds. Useful for cost analysis and budgeting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by transaction type | |
| limit | No | Max transactions to return (default 50, max 100) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nextCursor | No | Cursor for next page | |
| transactions | No | Transaction records |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns as a read operation. It adds specific transaction types, but does not elaborate on pagination, rate limits, or data freshness beyond what annotations already cover.
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 efficient sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a usage hint, with no wasted words.
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 the read-only nature, complete annotations, 100% parameter coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function and purpose.
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 description adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The types listed are already in the enum, and limit/cursor are not explained further.
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 clearly states it retrieves detailed transaction history, listing specific types (deposits, deductions, transfers, refunds), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like wallet.balance by focusing on history.
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 mentions 'useful for cost analysis and budgeting,' indicating when to use it, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.
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.
Most tools have distinct resource+action naming (e.g., leads.create, jobs.list), but some overlap exists in analytics tools (dashboard, detailed, financials) and workflow automations (process_lead vs google_ads_pipeline). Descriptions clarify purposes, so slight confusion is possible but limited.
All tools follow a consistent `domain.action` pattern (e.g., leads.create, billing.status). No mixing of camelCase or snake_case. Even complex names like lifecycle.assess or scaling.readiness_score adhere to the convention.
95 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). While the server aims to cover an entire business management platform, this volume is overwhelming for an agent, making selection and memory difficult.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering formation, hiring, compliance, funding, leads, quotes, jobs, invoicing, payments, marketing, analytics, integrations, webhooks, workflows, and more. Almost no obvious gaps in the lifecycle of running a trade business.