Retrieve paginated bank transactions filtered by description, statement ID, or match status.
List transactions. Retrieve a paginated list of bank transactions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | Yes | Items per page (max 100) | |
| offset | Yes | Pagination offset | |
| search | No | Search by description | |
| statementId | No | Filter by statement ID | |
| status | No | Filter by match status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.9Input schema / properties / limit / defaultAdded value: +50Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Max results to return (default 20)"New value: +"Items per page (max 100)"Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "description": "Pagination offset",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / search / descriptionPrevious value: -"Search by transaction description"New value: +"Search by description"Input schema / properties / statementId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Filter by bank statement ID"New value: +"Filter by statement ID"Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "limit",
+ "offset"
+]v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only mentions pagination but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, default ordering, or scope (all transactions vs. per account).
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 short sentences, no redundancy. Could be slightly more informative but not excessive.
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?
No output schema, and description fails to explain return structure or default behavior. Given 5 parameters and many siblings, more context is needed.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.
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 lists bank transactions and mentions pagination. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like get_statement_transactions, which filters by statement.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it's unclear how list_transactions differs from get_statement_transactions or list_matches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.