list_transactionsRetrieve recent wallet transactions, including deposits, debits, and refunds, with cursor-based pagination. Use this tool to review account activity without spending funds.
List recent wallet transactions (deposits, debits, refunds), cursor-paginated. Requires an API key. Does not spend.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size (1-100). | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous response. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well: it reveals cursor-based pagination, an API key requirement, and explicitly states the operation does not spend funds. It does not mention rate limits or response details, but the stated traits cover the most important safety and authentication behaviors.
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?
A single sentence packs the core purpose, transaction types, pagination behavior, auth requirement, and a safety guarantee, with no filler or redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded.
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 read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential operational context: what it lists, how pagination works, what credentials are needed, and that it is non-mutating. A description of the expected response shape would push this to a 5, but the current coverage is strong.
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%, so the schema already fully documents both `limit` and `cursor`. The description's mention of 'cursor-paginated' aligns with the schema but adds little meaning beyond it; the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics.
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?
States a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('wallet transactions'), and the scope ('recent'), and enumerates the transaction types covered. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as list_services and list_activations, which operate on different resources.
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 clearly conveys that this is the tool for viewing recent wallet transactions, and the note 'Does not spend' provides an important exclusion that helps an agent understand it is safe for read-only use. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the resource scope itself is clear enough given the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.