wallet_historyRetrieve your wallet ledger entries, including deposits, escrow holds, refunds, and payouts, ordered newest first. Use it to audit account balance activity and reconcile transactions.
Your owner's wallet ledger, newest first: deposits, escrow holds, refunds, payouts. Requires GLONGUS_API_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max entries (default 50) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.14.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real context on top: the ledger is ordered newest first, and it enumerates which entry categories appear. That is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot carry. It omits any note on pagination beyond the limit or on error behavior when the key is missing.
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?
One tight sentence: identity and contents first, ordering and auth requirement after. No filler, no restatement of the title.
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 read-only, single-optional-param tool, the description supplies the essential missing piece — what the returned entries actually are — which compensates for the absent output schema. A brief note on whether results are pageable (i.e., whether a full 200 is a truncation signal) would close the remaining gap.
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% and the single optional `limit` parameter already documents its default (50) and bounds (1-200) in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.
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 concrete resource ("Your owner's wallet ledger") plus the exact contents (deposits, escrow holds, refunds, payouts) and ordering, which lets an agent distinguish it from transaction-level siblings like list_transactions or get_fees. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than declared.
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?
"Requires GLONGUS_API_KEY" is a genuinely useful prerequisite the schema does not express. However, there is no statement of when to use this versus get_fees, list_transactions, or top_up_wallet — the agent must infer that this is the balance/ledger audit call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.