modern_treasury_list_ledger_accountsList ledger accounts. API: GET /ledger_accounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| per_page | No | Results per page (default 25, max 100). | |
| ledger_id | No | Filter by ledger id. | |
| 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 provide readOnlyHint=true, confirming read-only behavior. The description adds minimal value by specifying the API endpoint (GET /ledger_accounts), but does not elaborate on pagination, response structure, or any side effects.
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 two short sentences. No superfluous text, but could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
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 tool with no output schema and good annotations, the description is adequate. However, it misses details like return type (list of accounts) and pagination behavior, which would aid an agent.
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?
Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 'List ledger accounts' clearly states the verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_ledger_entries or list_ledgers, missing an opportunity to clarify scope.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_ledger_entries for entries, list_ledgers for ledgers). The description lacks context for agent decision-making.
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.