usage_listRetrieve paginated records of recent credit usage ledger entries for monitoring account consumption.
List recent credit usage ledger entries (paginated).
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": "usage_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions pagination and recency, but omits details like authentication requirements, read-only nature, rate limits, or what 'recent' implies (time frame). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and efficiently communicates the key aspects of listing usage entries with pagination.
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 listing tool, the description captures the primary function and pagination. However, it lacks output schema or return value details, and the meaning of 'recent' is ambiguous. Given the simplicity and lack of annotations, it is marginally adequate but not thoroughly complete.
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 0%, so the description needs to explain parameters. The word 'paginated' hints at cursor and limit, but no specific explanation of their semantics, how cursor works, or how limit bounds the results. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's type constraints.
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 clearly states the action (list), resource (credit usage ledger entries), and qualifiers (recent, paginated). It distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which cover different domains like accounts, approvals, and tasks.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no contextual cues about prerequisites or limitations. It merely states what it does without clarifying scenarios for use or non-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.