Retrieves a paginated list of wallet transaction history. Requires a valid session token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Optional page number (defaults to 1). | |
| limit | No | Optional number of items per page (defaults to 20). | |
| token | No | The secure session token returned by verify_agent_otp. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | ||
| isError | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "content": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "type",
+ "text"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "isError": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the results are paginated and an auth token obtained from verify_agent_otp is required. It does not describe rate limits or default page sizing behavior.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
With annotations covering the safety profile, a full parameter schema, and an output schema defining the return values, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it names the resource, the pagination, and the auth requirement. It omits only guidance on when this is preferred over get_wallet_balance or get_user_orders.
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 page, limit and token are already fully documented, and an output schema exists. The description only restates that the list is paginated and requires a token, adding no syntax or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb (Retrieves) plus resource (wallet transaction history) with the paginated-list nature stated up front. It clearly separates from get_wallet_balance by naming transactions rather than balance, but it never explicitly contrasts with that sibling, 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?
The description discloses the precondition (a valid session token from verify_agent_otp) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative among the wallet/order siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.
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.