agentcard

list_transactions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Transactions with amount, merchant, status, and timestamps. Pass card_id for one card's transactions; OMIT it for every card in the account (newest first, each row tagged with its card). Use limit and status to filter. The gated views list_all_transactions and list_transactions_by_payment_method also exist; call them by name even though they aren't in the tools list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max number of transactions to return (default 20)
`offset`	No	Skip this many (all-cards view pagination; ignored for a single card).
`status`	No	Filter by transaction status (e.g. PENDING, SETTLED, DECLINED, REVERSED, EXPIRED, REFUNDED)
`card_id`	No	A card ID for that card's transactions; omit for all cards in the account.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	Number of transactions returned.
`message`	Yes	Human-readable list of transactions (or a "no transactions" note).
`transactions`	No	The transactions for the card, newest first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: transactions are returned newest first, each row tagged with card when all cards, and offset is ignored for single-card queries. No contradictions with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, each purposeful: content summary, card_id usage, filtering advice, and alternative views. No redundant or unnecessary text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists and schema covers all parameters, the description adequately covers behavior, filtering, pagination, and alternatives. No critical gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic difference for card_id (one vs all) and advising use of limit/status. However, it does not elaborate on offset behavior beyond the schema note.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists transactions with specific fields (amount, merchant, status, timestamps) and distinguishes behavior with/without card_id. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning alternative gated views, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides usage guidance on filtering via limit and status, and explains when to include or omit card_id. It references alternative views but does not explicitly state when to prefer them over this tool, slightly reducing clarity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All agentcard tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially in areas like card management and shopping. However, the KYC flow has multiple overlapping tools (start_kyc, get_kyc_status, check_kyc_document, submit_kyc_document, submit_kyc_fields) that could confuse an agent despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_funds, create_card, list_cards). A few exceptions like surprise_me and whoami break the pattern but are still intuitive overall.

Tool Count3/5

50 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the broad domain (cards, shopping, KYC, support, settings) partially justifies it. Some tools could be merged (e.g., KYC flow tools) without losing clarity.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows: CRUD for cards, transactions, KYC, support, shopping, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update_card general, no cancel order in shopping), but overall the set is comprehensive for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?