modern_treasury_list_counterpartiesList counterparties (contacts). API: GET /counterparties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Filter by counterparty name. | |
| No | Filter by counterparty email. | ||
| per_page | No | Results per page (default 25, max 100). | |
| after_cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a prior response's next_cursor (X-After-Cursor header). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, making the safe read-only behavior clear. However, the description does not mention pagination behavior (cursor, default limit) or any other behavioral traits beyond the API call. Minimal additional value.
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?
Extremely concise: one sentence plus API reference. No filler; every word is useful.
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 simple list operation with full schema coverage and explicit annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details on response format or pagination handling, but given the tool's simplicity and available metadata, it is sufficient.
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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning for parameters; baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool lists counterparties (contacts) and provides the API endpoint. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_counterparty and get_counterparty by specifying the list operation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools (e.g., list_external_accounts) or the individual get_counterparty. No mention of when not to use it or prerequisites.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource (counterparty, ledger account, payment order, etc.) with clear actions (create, get, list, ping). There is no ambiguity between tools.
All tools follow a consistent 'modern_treasury_verb_singular_or_plural_resource' pattern in snake_case. The naming is uniform and predictable.
17 tools cover multiple financial entities and operations, which is reasonable for a treasury API. It's on the higher end but not excessive given the domain.
The tool set is heavily read-only, with only one create operation (counterparty). Missing create/update/delete for payment orders, ledger transactions, and other core actions, which severely limits functionality for a treasury system.