list_payeesRetrieve known payees ranked by transaction count, including last used date and typical category, to support consistent categorization and correct payee spelling.
Known payees/merchants ranked by number of transactions, with last date and the category usually used for them. Useful for consistent categorization and payee spelling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| search | No | Substring of the payee name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context (results are ranked by transaction frequency and include last-used date and usual category), but says nothing about ordering guarantees, pagination, or how the default limit truncates results.
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?
Two compact sentences; the payload description (what fields come back) is front-loaded and the benefit statement follows. Nothing is redundant, though the closing sentence is soft and could have carried the limit/ordering semantics instead.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (payee, rank, last date, usual category). Missing only parameter-level behavior (default cap of 50/500 max, sort direction), which keeps it just short of complete.
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 coverage is 50%: 'search' is documented in the schema but 'limit' is not. The description does not mention either parameter, so it adds nothing beyond the schema. Because limit carries a visible default of 50 and min/max bounds it is largely self-explanatory, keeping this at a baseline 3 rather than lower.
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 and resource (lists known payees/merchants) and adds differentiating detail: ranked by transaction count, with last date and typical category. It is clearly distinct from list_accounts, list_categories, and suggest_category, though it never names a sibling explicitly to contrast with.
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?
The phrase 'Useful for consistent categorization and payee spelling' implies the use case but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not point to an alternative such as suggest_category. Usage must be inferred from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.