Fetch PayGate transactions by filters: type, status, provider, date range, search. Use limit and offset for pagination to query specific transaction records.
List transactions (rate limit: 100 requests per 1m) Read-only (GET /paygate/transactions).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| to_date | No | ||
| provider | No | ||
| from_date | No |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only and states the rate limit (100 requests per 1m), which is valuable. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, response shape, or whether results are ordered.
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 compact sentence that leads with the core purpose and includes useful constraints (rate limit, read-only, HTTP method). It is not verbose, though it sacrifices substance for brevity in parameter guidance.
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 list tool with eight optional parameters and no output schema, this description is incomplete. The read-only and rate-limit details help, but the absence of parameter semantics, pagination defaults, and any sense of the response structure means an agent cannot reliably invoke it beyond a bare request.
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% and the description provides no explanation of any of the eight parameters. The agent is left without any information about type, format, status, provider, search, from_date, to_date, limit, or offset, so it cannot build meaningful requests.
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 the exact action and resource ('List transactions') and reinforces it with the HTTP endpoint 'GET /paygate/transactions'. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling getTransactionById because one is a list operation and the other is a single-record lookup.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like getTransactionById, listPayouts, or listCheckoutSessions. The only implied usage is 'list transactions', but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.