cloud_ledgerRead deposit, deduction, and refund entries from a ledger, with cursor pagination and a limit, to reconcile account transactions and payments.
Đọc các dòng nạp, trừ và hoàn tiền trong ledger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds which ledger entry types are returned (topup/deduction/refund), but says nothing about ordering, pagination or result volume, which matters for an open-world read that could return many rows.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource types are the first content an agent sees. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse to earn a top score.
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 tool with pagination parameters and no output schema, the definition omits return shape, ordering and pagination flow entirely. The annotations cover safety, but the operational picture an agent needs to page through ledger entries is missing.
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% for two parameters (limit, cursor), and the description never mentions them. The agent gets no indication that limit caps at 100 or that cursor is the pagination token, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('Đọc' = read) and a clearly delimited resource: deposit, deduction and refund entries in the wallet ledger. This distinguishes it from cloud_balance (current balance) and cloud_usage (consumption), though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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 versus cloud_balance, cloud_usage or cloud_invoice_list. The description states only what is read, leaving the agent to infer the scenario (auditing wallet movements) on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.