list_payment_history List the user's recent Stripe payment history.
Args:
limit: Maximum rows (default: 10, max: 100)
Returns:
``{"payments": [...]}`` with id, status, amount, currency,
created_at, plan_name, description, and invoice_pdf_url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return shape (list of payments with fields) and the 'recent' scoping, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections add necessary detail without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear.
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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the return format and parameter constraint. It does not mention pagination or any filtering beyond 'recent', but given the simplicity, it is adequately complete. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit Return section.
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 schema has one parameter (limit) with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explaining 'Maximum rows (default: 10, max: 100)', giving both the meaning and constraints. This is complete and unambiguous.
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 clear verb and resource: 'List the user's recent Stripe payment history.' It is specific about the resource (Stripe payments) and distinguishes it from siblings like list_payment_links (payment links) and get_subscription_status (current status). No ambiguity.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools, prerequisites, or conditions. The agent must infer from the name and description when to choose this over other list/get tools.
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.