Read one transaction
Reads a single banking transaction — an on-ramp arriving or an off-ramp paying out — with its normalized status.
Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transactionId | Yes | The transaction to read. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / auth_tokenRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header.",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety behavior. It adds useful context beyond those annotations: the transaction can be an on-ramp arriving or off-ramp paying out, it returns a normalized status, and it is free. No contradiction with 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 three short sentences with no filler. The key action and scope are front-loaded, and the extra details (on-ramp/off-ramp, normalized status, free) each add value without bloating the text.
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 low-complexity single-parameter read tool with an output schema and strong safety annotations, the description is complete. It communicates what the transaction represents, the status normalization, and the cost, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.
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 fully documents transactionId (100% coverage) with 'The transaction to read.' The description does not add additional parameter details such as expected format or how to obtain the ID, but the schema carries the necessary semantic weight. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Reads a single banking transaction') and a clear resource, explicitly narrowing the scope to one transaction as opposed to a list. The on-ramp/off-ramp clarification also disambiguates the transaction types covered, and the singular framing distinguishes it from sibling list_banking_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?
The context is clear: use this to fetch one banking transaction. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as list_banking_transactions for multiple transactions, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
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.