Retrieve transaction history for a Lightning wallet, covering both incoming and outgoing payments. Supports pagination with limit and offset parameters.
Get the agent transaction history. Returns both incoming and outgoing payments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max transactions to return | |
| offset | No | Number to skip for pagination |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Input schema / properties / limit / maximumPrevious value: -200New value: +100v1.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that both incoming and outgoing payments are included, but does not mention any limitations, such as whether pending transactions are included or any auth requirements. This is minimal but adequate for a simple read operation.
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 concise sentences effectively communicate the tool's purpose. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and result, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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 simple retrieval tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. However, it could benefit from noting whether the transaction history includes invoice-specific entries or any filtering capabilities, given the variety of sibling tools.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both limit and offset. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves agent transaction history and specifies it returns both incoming and outgoing payments. This distinguishes it from invoice-specific tools like get_invoice_status, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 description gives no context about prerequisites, scenarios, or when another tool might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.