stripe_list_transfersList transfers from platform to connected accounts, with optional filters for timeframe and destination. Get details on amount, currency, and reversals.
Transfers from the platform to connected accounts: amount, currency, destination, funding charge, reversals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since_days | No | Only transfers created in the last N days | |
| destination | No | Only transfers to this connected account |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names transfer fields but does not state that this is a read-only listing, whether any state/status filters apply, what ordering or pagination is used, or what happens with large result sets. The side-effect profile and return behavior remain unclear.
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 compact and front-loaded with the resource and scope. The field list is terse but adds some useful context, and there is no redundant prose.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin for complete invocation guidance. It gives field hints but omits when to use it, parameter semantics, and list behavior such as ordering, pagination, and default limits.
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?
The description does not explain limit, since_days, or destination; it lists response fields rather than parameter semantics. The schema covers since_days and destination, but limit has only default/min/max, and the description adds no meaning for any parameter.
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 states a clear resource ('transfers') and scope ('from the platform to connected accounts'), and the title supplies the verb 'List'. It is distinguishable from charges/payouts/balance by naming transfer-specific fields. It does not explicitly contrast with stripe_diagnose_transfer, but the list-vs-diagnose distinction is reasonably implicit.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as stripe_diagnose_transfer and stripe_list_payouts are not mentioned, and the description gives no conditions or exclusions that would help an agent choose among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.