Returns recent ledger entries (deductions and micro-payments) for an agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max entries to return (default 20, max 100). | |
| agentID | Yes | The agent whose history to retrieve. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details by specifying the entry types (deductions and micro-payments) and implies read-only via 'Returns,' but it does not disclose ordering, time range, or potential side effects. The description gives a basic read operation with some behavioral context, but not comprehensive transparency.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no wasteful words and delivers the core meaning effectively.
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?
The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain the structure of the returned ledger entries (e.g., fields like amount, timestamp, type). While the tool is simple and the description gives basic context, an agent would be left inferring the return format, making it adequate but not fully complete.
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% with both parameters (agentID, limit) already described in the input schema. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Returns'), the resource ('recent ledger entries'), and the scope ('deductions and micro-payments', 'for an agent'). This specific wording distinguishes it from sibling tools like wallet_get_balance, which would focus on current balance rather than transaction 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wallet_get_balance or wallet_get_autopay_threshold. It implies usage for transaction history but does not mention exclusions or name alternative tools for different use cases.
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 is scoped to a distinct resource and action within its domain (budget, contract, deal, escrow, hiring, wallet, workroom, trust). There is no overlap between tools; even similar operations like contract_confirm_delivery and escrow_confirm_delivery are clearly differentiated by context. A model can reliably select the correct tool for a given task.
Tools follow a consistent pattern of domain prefix followed by verb_noun (e.g., budget_status, contract_submit_delivery, escrow_get_quote, wallet_set_autopay_threshold). The naming is uniform across all 42 tools, with no mixing of conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb placement.
With 42 tools, the server is heavily overloaded. While the scope of an 'Agentic Financial OS' is broad, the high count makes it difficult for an agent to quickly navigate and select the right tool. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple get/list tools per domain, documentation tools like *how_it_works that could be merged). The count exceeds the recommended range and feels excessive.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of financial operations: budget management, negotiation (deal_open/propose/accept/cancel), contract creation and delivery with verification, escrow with payment protection, hiring workflows, wallet operations, trust checks, and a marketplace for data/services. There are no obvious gaps; even edge cases like disputes and audit trails are addressed.