Lists the current user's payments and refunds, showing positive amounts as credits and negative as debits, to help reconcile unclear purchases by transaction type.
List the current user's payments and refunds (positive amount = credit, negative = debit). Branch on type, not the translated remark/typeRemark. Use it to reconcile unclear purchases; it is not an idempotency guarantee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.10.24Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real operational guidance: the amount sign convention, an explicit data-quality warning to branch on `type` rather than the translated `remark`/`typeRemark`, and a caveat that results are not an idempotency guarantee. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not infer from the schema. Pagination behavior and result stability are only hinted at, keeping it from a 5.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and sign semantics before the caveats. The middle sentence references fields (`type`, `typeRemark`) that are never described, which borders on cryptic, but no text is wasted.
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?
This is a read-only list tool with no output schema, so the description should sketch the return shape; it explains the sign of `amount` but never mentions that records carry `type`/`remark` fields or how many pages to expect. Adequate to call correctly, but an agent still guesses at the response structure and pagination limits.
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?
Both parameters (page, size) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about pagination, defaults, or the maximum size of 1000. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not; the only semantic content (sign of amount) is about the response, not the inputs.
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 — listing the current user's payments and refunds — and adds the sign convention (positive = credit, negative = debit), which tells an agent what the values mean. It is clearly distinct from the browser/proxy/SMS siblings, though it does not explicitly position itself against the other record-list tools (nex_ip_order_list, nex_mail_record_list, nex_sms_record_list) that an agent might confuse it 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?
"Use it to reconcile unclear purchases" gives one concrete scenario, and "it is not an idempotency guarantee" implies a caution, but neither states when NOT to use it nor names an alternative tool. The intended usage is implied rather than delimited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.