Your last Earn / move operations: what each did, step by step, and how it ended.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_operations"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many recent operations, 1–50 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each entry includes step-by-step actions and a final outcome, which is useful return-shape context, but it says nothing about ordering, recency window, or whether the list is paginated beyond the limit.
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?
One short sentence with no filler, and the scope ('your last Earn / move operations') is front-loaded. The 'what each did, step by step' clause is slightly awkward but still conveys return content.
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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage this is adequate, and the mention of per-step detail and outcome partially compensates for the missing output schema. However, the term 'operation' is never defined as to whether it covers deposits, withdrawals, transfers, or all of them, leaving real ambiguity about coverage.
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% for the single 'limit' parameter with its 1–50 range, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about the limit or default behavior, which is acceptable at baseline 3 but not more.
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 identifies a specific resource ('your last Earn / move operations') and implies a listing of them, distinguishing it from siblings like list_orders or list_webhooks by scope. It never uses an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', and the phrase 'what each did, step by step' is unusual wording for a resource description, but the domain is clear enough to select the tool.
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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_earn or get_positions, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer that this is the historical/audit view of Earn and move-funds activity.
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.