Busca transações por texto na descrição, observação ou tags (ex.: "iFood", "Uber", "salário"). Paginação via page/per_page; sem datas, o padrão são os últimos 6 meses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| tags_only | No | ||
| max_amount | No | ||
| min_amount | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| activity_type | No |
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. The description adds useful behavior beyond those: which fields are searched, pagination behavior, and the important default time window of 6 months. It does not contradict the 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 two tight sentences: the first delivers the core search purpose and examples, the second covers pagination and the date default. There is no filler or repetition.
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?
With 9 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers only the query and pagination basics. It omits the meaning of most filter parameters, does not describe the result shape, and gives no guidance on ordering or pagination limits. This is inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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 0%, so the description should compensate for the 9 parameters. It explains query, page, per_page, and hints at date behavior, but leaves end_date, start_date, tags_only, min_amount, max_amount, and activity_type undocumented. This is partial but insufficient compensation.
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 and resource: search transactions by text in description, observation, or tags, with concrete examples. This clearly differentiates it from broad listing tools like organizze_list_transactions and get_transaction.
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?
It gives clear operational guidance: pagination via page/per_page and a default 6-month window when no dates are supplied, plus concrete example queries. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.