Search Monzo transactions by merchant or description text. Optionally set a time range to narrow results.
Search transactions by merchant or description text
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Case-insensitive text to match | |
| since | No | Optional RFC3339/ISO timestamp lower bound | |
| before | No | Optional RFC3339/ISO timestamp upper bound | |
| account_id | Yes | The account ID to search |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the matching fields and does not describe result shape, ordering, pagination, matching semantics (e.g., substring vs exact), or any other runtime behavior beyond 'search'.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes: the action, the resource, and the search criteria are all immediately visible.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description omits information an agent would need to use the tool effectively, such as return format, pagination, or ordering. It also lacks routing guidance relative to list_transactions, making the overall tool description incomplete for a 4-parameter search 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the 'query' parameter is matched against merchant or description text, which is not explicitly captured in the schema's generic 'Case-insensitive text to match' description.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource ('transactions'), and states the search criteria ('by merchant or description text'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions, which would list rather than text-search.
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 implies the tool is for finding transactions by text, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over list_transactions or get_transaction, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage context is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.