Retrieve a page of up to 500 transactions for a given account, using date filters and a cursor for pagination.
Uma página de até 500 transações v2. Datas YYYY-MM-DD; cursor opaco da resposta anterior.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| date_to | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| account_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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the page cap of 500, the opaque cursor mechanism, and the YYYY-MM-DD date format. These details help the agent understand pagination and input expectations without contradicting annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core behavior first (page of up to 500 transactions), then adds the essential date and cursor constraints. Every clause contributes useful information with no filler.
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 output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the most important invocation details: page size, cursor handling, and date format. The main gap is that account_id is not mentioned in the description, though it is required in the schema and identifiable by title/format.
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 does explain the cursor's provenance ('da resposta anterior') and the date format, but account_id and the exact semantics/relationship of date_from and date_to are left implicit. This is partial compensation, not complete.
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 ('transações') and the paginated nature ('uma página de até 500 transações'), making it clear this is a list-oriented tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools, but the resource name and page-cap framing provide enough clarity.
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 explicit when-to-use or alternative routing guidance. The cursor instruction ('cursor opaco da resposta anterior') implies this tool is used for paginated traversal, but it does not explain when to choose it over get_transaction, list_account_statements, or other siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.