increase_list_pending_transactionsList pending (not-yet-settled) transactions. Increase API: GET /pending_transactions. Filter by account and status (sent as status.in).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1–100. Default 100. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response's next_cursor. | |
| status | No | Status filter (sent as status.in), e.g. pending | complete. | |
| account_id | No | Only pending transactions for this account id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's remaining burden is light. It usefully adds the underlying API call (GET /pending_transactions) and the query-translation detail that status is sent as 'status.in', but says nothing about ordering, result completeness, or iteration depth.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then endpoint, then filters. No filler and nothing redundant.
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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage on all four parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering and the meaning of the opaque cursor when no results are returned.
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 100%, so limit, cursor, status, and account_id are all documented in the schema itself; the description only restates the two filter parameters. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema carries the parameter semantics.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List pending transactions') and defines the scope precisely with 'not-yet-settled'. It is distinguishable from increase_list_declined_transactions, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling increase_list_transactions, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with.
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?
Usage is implied by the '(not-yet-settled)' scope and the named filters (account and status), giving the agent a sense of when this tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as increase_list_transactions or increase_list_declined_transactions.
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.