Retrieve your point transaction logs with filters for materials, redeem, bonus, or transfer activity, and sort results by date or point change. Use paging to review account history.
积分流水；支持 materials/redeem/bonus/transfer 类型过滤与 date/delta 排序。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 页码，从 1 开始 | |
| type | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| sort_by | No | ||
| page_size | No | 每页条数，最多 100 |
| 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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the filter/sort options that live in the schema — no pagination behavior, no auth requirement, no scope caveats.
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 dense clause with no padding, and the filter/sort capability is front-loaded. Only the missing verb keeps it from being ideal.
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 not be described. Pagination parameters are documented in the schema. What remains missing — when to choose this over sibling record listings — is a real gap for a 5-parameter listing tool.
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 only 40%, but the description partially compensates by naming the type values (materials/redeem/bonus/transfer) and the sort fields (date/delta). It adds no meaning for order or for how type interacts with sorting, leaving a gap.
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 names the resource (积分流水 / point logs) and its filter and sort capabilities, but supplies no verb and does not distinguish it from overlapping siblings such as share_list_point_transfer_records or share_list_redeem_records, which an agent could easily mistake for this tool.
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 never states when to use this tool versus the nearby record-listing tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g., login state). The available filters are implied but there is no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.