modern_treasury_list_external_accountsList external (counterparty) bank accounts. API: GET /external_accounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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). | |
| counterparty_id | No | Filter by owning counterparty id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's addition of 'List' is redundant. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as pagination behavior or rate limits.
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 extremely concise with one sentence containing no extraneous 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 low complexity, zero required parameters, and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. However, it lacks any mention of pagination or filtering behavior, which could be helpful.
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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'external (counterparty) bank accounts', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_internal_accounts' and 'list_counterparties'.
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 implies usage for external counterparty accounts but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.