Retrieve investment transactions for a given investment ID, using numbered pagination and configurable page size to access movement history.
Movimentações do investimento com paginação numerada.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| investment_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| meta | Yes | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| pagination | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific detail 'paginação numerada' (numbered pagination), which goes slightly beyond the schema's generic page/page_size parameters, but no other behavioral traits are disclosed.
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 extremely brief, with no wasted words, and the core resource is front-loaded. However, it is a fragment rather than a full sentence, and the brevity borders on under-specification, so it does not merit a 5.
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?
Given the tool has one required parameter plus pagination parameters and several closely related sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to obtain the investment_id, what differentiates this from list_transactions, or what the paging scheme implies for callers. The output schema exists, but that does not compensate for missing selection and parameter guidance.
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%, so the description must compensate. It implies investment_id through 'do investimento' and pagination through 'paginação numerada', but it does not explain parameter formats, semantics, or how page/page_size interact. The parameter names and defaults provide some structure, but the description leaves too much for the agent to infer.
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 identifies the resource (investment transactions) and a key behavior (numbered pagination). It is clear but phrased as a noun fragment rather than an explicit verb+resource, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_transactions or list_investments.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes similar tools such as list_transactions and list_investments, but the description gives no selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.