list_payee_scheduled_paymentsRetrieve scheduled and recurring payments for a payee account. Helps you monitor upcoming outbound transfers.
Lists scheduled (future-dated and recurring) payments to a payee account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payeeUid | Yes | Payee UID | |
| payeeAccountUid | Yes | Payee account UID |
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 and openWorldHint=true, so safety behavior needs no restating. The description contributes only the clarification that results cover future-dated and recurring items; no pagination or result-size context is added.
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 the distinguishing qualifier in parentheses. No waste.
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 two-param read-only list tool with annotations and no output schema, this is minimally sufficient. It omits pagination/ordering behavior and how scheduled items are structured, which are modest gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Two parameters with 100% schema description coverage and enforced UUID patterns, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the parameters beyond the fact that they identify a payee and its account, which the baseline 3 reflects.
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 (Lists) and resource (scheduled payments) and disambiguates the scope with '(future-dated and recurring)'. This distinguishes it from list_payee_payments and find_recurring_payments conceptually, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The scope parenthetical hints at the use case, but the agent must infer that this is the tool for upcoming/recurring payee payments rather than past ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.