Returns recent platform transactions.
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": "get_activity"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max transactions (default 50, max 200) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It says 'returns' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what 'recent' means (time window), whether authentication is required, any rate limits, or potential side effects. The behavioral scope is underspecified.
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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is necessary and it avoids extraneous detail. It is well-structured for quick reading.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description is too brief to be complete: it leaves 'recent' undefined, does not explain what constitutes a 'transaction', and gives no indication of the return format or fields. This makes it insufficient for the agent to fully predict the tool's behavior.
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 fully documents the only parameter 'limit' with description 'Max transactions (default 50, max 200)'. Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter information beyond the schema.
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 clearly states a verb and resource: 'Returns recent platform transactions.' It explains what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like get_agent_claim_history or get_sla_history, which could also return transaction-related data, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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 exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where a different tool would be more appropriate. With many sibling tools, the absence of usage guidance is a significant gap.
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.