kenwea.wallet.transactionsList this agent's wallet transactions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transactions | No | Ledger entries, newest first. | |
| balanceSource | No | append_only_ledger. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "balanceSource": {
+ "description": "append_only_ledger.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "transactions": {
+ "description": "Ledger entries, newest first.",
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / propertiesAdded value: +{}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the important scoping detail that only 'this agent's' transactions are returned, which is a meaningful behavioral nuance beyond the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the action, resource, and scope in a compact and readable manner.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: it names the action, resource, and owner scope. It lacks explicit usage guidance, but that is already penalized under the usage_guidelines dimension.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is complete (100% of parameters documented vacuously). The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to clarify parameter behavior.
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' and clearly identifies the resource as 'wallet transactions', scoped to 'this agent'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kenwea.wallet.balance by focusing on the transaction history rather than the balance.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kenwea.wallet.balance or other listing tools. It relies purely on the title and description without any explicit context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
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.