modern_treasury_list_ledger_entriesList ledger entries (individual debits/credits). API: GET /ledger_entries.
| 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). | |
| ledger_account_id | No | Filter by ledger account id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds the endpoint 'GET /ledger_entries', confirming the read-only behavior. However, no additional behavior (like rate limits, auth, or response details) is disclosed beyond what annotations cover.
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 a single sentence plus the endpoint, both highly concise with no superfluous words. Every sentence contributes value.
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?
The tool is simple with only three optional filter parameters and no output schema. The description adequately names the resource and action but does not clarify the response format or pagination behavior (the schema describes cursor pagination but the description omits it).
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% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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 'ledger entries', with a clarifying parenthetical '(individual debits/credits)' that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ledger_accounts or list_ledger_transactions.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_ledger_accounts for accounts or list_ledger_transactions for transactions). There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite conditions 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.