modern_treasury_list_ledger_transactionsList ledger transactions (READ ONLY — does not post value). API: GET /ledger_transactions.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'READ ONLY' adds no new insight. It mentions the API path but provides no additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or data freshness.
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 only two short sentences, front-loading the key purpose and read-only nature. 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?
For a simple list tool with full schema coverage and readOnlyHint, the description is adequate. It lacks detail on return format but the schema handles pagination parameters. It is complete enough for the intended use.
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 the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. However, it also adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 ledger transactions, specifies it is read-only, and provides the API endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ledger_entries or list_ledgers.
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 indicates the tool is for retrieval ('READ ONLY') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No comparisons or exclusions are provided beyond the resource name.
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.