list_card_transactionsRetrieve your corporate card transactions for a given month, optionally filtered by card, to track expenses.
List the caller's corporate card transactions for a month.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | No | Month as YYYY-MM. Defaults to the current month. | |
| card_id | No | One of the caller's card ids. Omit for all cards. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that results are limited to the caller's own card transactions (an auth-scoping detail beyond the annotations), but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or ordering.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope (caller, card transactions, monthly window) is stated immediately.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and both parameters are documented in the schema. However, for a listing tool the description omits any mention of result size, pagination, or ordering, which are exactly the gaps a list tool should close.
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% – both month (YYYY-MM, defaults to current month) and card_id (omit for all cards) are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'for a month' and 'caller's' phrasing mirrors rather than extends that, so 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 (list) and resource (corporate card transactions) with the caller scope and month granularity. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_card_balance or find_missing_receipts, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, no exclusions. The 'for a month' phrasing implies a per-month query window but tells the agent nothing about when this tool is preferable to its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.