list_transactionsRetrieve recent transactions from Rotki within a specified time window, with pagination and adjustable look-back period, to review portfolio activity and analyze transaction history.
List recent transactions within a time window
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 200) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (default: 0) | |
| window_days | No | Days to look back (default: 30) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool lists transactions; it does not mention ordering, pagination behavior, whether results are read-only, or any other operational characteristics.
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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is so brief that it leaves behavioral details undisclosed.
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 fairly simple tool with optional parameters fully described in the schema, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, missing details like sort order, default behavior, and distinction from 'find_transactions' leave notable gaps.
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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds the notion of a 'time window', which loosely maps to the 'window_days' parameter, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 a clear action ('list') on a specific resource ('recent transactions') with a time-window scope. It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'find_transactions'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_transactions' or 'get_portfolio_overview'. The time-window phrasing implies a use case, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.