List app→user transfers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | Filter by asset code. | |
| count | No | Page size (default 100). | |
| offset | No | Skip this many. | |
| spend_id | No | Filter by idempotency key. | |
| transfer_ids | No | Comma-separated ids. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is known. The description adds the app→user scoping detail, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, or what the response contains. The added value beyond annotations is modest.
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 wasted words. It communicates the core purpose immediately and does not repeat schema information.
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 read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters and no required inputs, the description plus schema gives an agent enough to understand what the tool does and what it accepts. The lack of usage guidance and output-format details is a minor gap but not critical given the simplicity of the operation.
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%, meaning all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics, 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 states a specific verb ('List') and a resource ('app→user transfers'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The directionality 'app→user' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like transfer and transferBatch, which are write operations, and from other list tools like getChecks or getInvoices.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says what it does, not when it should be selected, and no exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.
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 maps to a distinct resource or action: invoices, subscription plans, subscriptions, checks, transfers, balance, rates, and auth flows. The two-step connect/connect_status pair is clearly separated into initiate and poll, and similar actions like archiveSubscriptionPlan versus cancelSubscription are explicitly differentiated.
The vast majority of tools follow a camelCase verb_noun pattern such as createInvoice, getSubscriptions, and refundInvoice. The exceptions are connect_status and get_docs, which use snake_case, creating a minor but noticeable inconsistency.
At 21 tools, the server is on the heavier side but the breadth of a merchant payment API justifies it: auth, invoices, subscriptions, transfers/checks, balances, exchange rates, stats, webhooks, and docs all need coverage. No tools feel redundant, though a few list-only endpoints could arguably be consolidated.
Core invoice and subscription lifecycles are well covered: create, list, delete, archive, cancel, and refund. However, there is no visible createTransfer or createCheck tool even though the API includes transfers/checks docs and deleteCheck/getTransfers, leaving a notable dead end for initiating transfers.