increase_list_real_time_payments_transfersList Real-Time Payments (RTP) transfers (read-only observability; this server does NOT create transfers). Increase API: GET /real_time_payments_transfers. Filter by account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1–100. Default 100. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response's next_cursor. | |
| account_id | No | Only RTP transfers for this account id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. Description reinforces that the server does not create transfers, but adds minimal new behavioral insight beyond the annotation.
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?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and key constraints. No wasted words.
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?
Given the simple list operation with no output schema and good annotations, the description covers all essential information: purpose, safety, and filtering.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description mentions 'Filter by account' which matches account_id, but adds no additional meaning beyond schema descriptions.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists RTP transfers, specifies it's read-only, and distinguishes from other list tools (e.g., list_ach_transfers) by naming the resource. The verb 'List' is specific.
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?
Explicitly states read-only observability and that creation is separate, setting clear context. Does not name alternative tools for filtering or other operations, so slightly less than perfect.
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.