Get all wallet transactions for your account including credits, debits, and payment details.
Get all wallet transactions for your account including credits, debits, and payment details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minor context by indicating account-level scoping and the types of transactions included, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as pagination, rate limits, or whether 'all' means unbounded result sizes. With annotations present, the added value is marginal but not entirely absent.
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 repetitive: the same sentence appears twice, once in the opening and again under the '## When to use' heading. The markdown headings add no new information, and the repeated sentence wastes space. A single sentence would have been sufficient and more concise.
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 parameterless read-only tool, the description adequately states what the tool returns ('all wallet transactions') and its scope. There is no output schema, but the description does not need to explain return values in detail given the simplicity of the operation. The main gap is the lack of any distinction from the similarly named fetch_billing_transactions, but this is not required for completeness of the description itself.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parametric explanation needed. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately adds no extraneous parameter-related information.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('wallet transactions'), and scope ('for your account'), while also enumerating content ('credits, debits, and payment details'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_billing_transactions.
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?
Although there is a '## When to use' heading, the text under it simply repeats the main description. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of scenarios where another tool (e.g., fetch_billing_transactions) would be more appropriate.
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 follow a clear resource+action pattern (fetch_* for lists, get_* for single items, create/update/delete for writes), making them distinguishable. A few near-overlaps exist (fetch_billing_transactions vs fetch_wallet_transactions, draw_winners vs schedule_drawing) but the descriptions clarify the boundaries.
Tool names consistently use snake_case verb_noun, with fetch_ for list operations and get_ for single-item retrieval. Some verb variation (add_participant, count_participants, draw_winners, schedule_drawing) deviates from the dominant create/fetch/update/delete pattern but remains predictable and readable.
With 83 tools, this is far beyond a well-scoped server (typically 3-15, with 25+ considered too many). Even though the platform has broad functionality, the sheer number of tools creates significant agent confusion and selection overhead.
The sweepstakes domain is thoroughly covered: lifecycle management, participants, groups, rules, drawings, winners, calendar, notes, todos, tickets, surveys, invoices, billing, files, and entry settings. A few minor gaps exist (e.g., no general participant field update, no archive action) but the surface is remarkably complete for its scope.
