Retrieve full details of an imported bank transaction by its ID for KikoBooks bookkeeping. Read-only access helps inspect transaction data without changing records.
Get full details of a single imported bank transaction by ID. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Bank transaction ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does this by declaring 'Read-only', which is exactly the safety signal an annotation would have supplied. It does not go further into permissions or response format, but for a lookup tool the key behavioral trait is covered.
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?
Two short sentences, purpose first and the read-only qualifier second. Nothing is wasted and the essential 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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers what is fetched ('full details of a single imported bank transaction') and its read-only nature, which is sufficient for correct invocation. Without an output schema it could have sketched the returned shape, a minor remaining gap.
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 single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Bank transaction ID'. The description adds only 'by ID', which confirms intent but no format or syntax beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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 (Get) and resource (a single imported bank transaction) with an explicit lookup key ('by ID'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling search_bank_transactions (plural search). It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the singular/ID framing makes the distinction clear.
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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is used when a transaction identifier is already known, and the contrast with search_* siblings is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.