Lightning Wallet

export_transactions

Export this agent's transaction history as JSON or CSV for accounting, optionally for a date range. Read-only. Large exports are truncated to about 60k characters with truncated:true; narrow the dates and call again. REQUIRES AGENT KEY.

Tool call template

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": "export_transactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`format`	No		json
`end_date`	No	Inclusive end, YYYY-MM-DD
`start_date`	No	Inclusive start, YYYY-MM-DD
`include_pending`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations supplied, the description does real work: it declares read-only behavior, discloses the ~60k character truncation and the truncated:true flag, and states the agent-key auth requirement. It stops short of covering error cases or ordering of returned records, but the mutation/size/auth profile is unusually well disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then progressively narrower operational facts in short sentences. No filler, no restatement of the name, and the truncation caveat sits right where an agent would look for it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, output formats, auth, and the main failure mode (truncation). The gaps are include_pending semantics and any hint of record contents, both of which an agent would otherwise have to guess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

At 50% schema coverage, the description compensates for the two date parameters by describing the range option, and for format by naming JSON/CSV. It says nothing about include_pending, which is undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving one of four parameters opaque.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Export this agent's transaction history') plus the output formats ('JSON or CSV') and a use case ('for accounting'). This naturally separates it from the sibling get_transactions, but it never names that sibling or states the distinction explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'for accounting, optionally for a date range', and the truncation note gives an operational remedy ('narrow the dates and call again'). However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_transactions, no exclusions, and no guidance on when to leave the date range unbounded.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Lightning Wallet tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.