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.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_transactions"
  }
}

Input 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

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.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 22, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / transactions / items / properties / processorTransactionId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The card processor's reference for the charge, the value transaction.* webhook events carry as data.id (their transaction_id is this row's id). Null for wallet-funding rows.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

First observedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds useful behavioral details: 'newest first, each row tagged with its card' and the existence of gated views. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, but the annotation set covers the safety profile.

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?

Three sentences, each pulling weight: return content, parameter scoping/filtering, and alternative tool routing. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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?

With a full output schema, read-only/idempotent annotations, and a description that covers scoping, filtering, ordering, and gated alternatives, an agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly. Pagination and default details are already covered by the schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces card_id's omit-for-all-cards semantics and the use of limit/status for filtering, but these are already present in the schema descriptions; no substantially new parameter-level meaning is added.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names the resource and fields ('Transactions with amount, merchant, status, and timestamps') and clarifies the two scopes (with/without card_id), so an agent can tell what the tool returns. It also distinguishes itself by naming gated sibling views, though the opening is a noun fragment rather than an explicit verb-phrase.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to pass card_id (single card) vs omit it (all cards), instructs the agent to use limit and status for filtering, and directly names the alternatives list_all_transactions and list_transactions_by_payment_method, including that they are gated and callable by name. This gives clear, actionable routing guidance.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?