List the authenticated account's withdrawal history. Requires API credentials.
Deprecated: use fetch_withdrawals. List the authenticated account's withdrawal history. Requires API credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of records to return (max 100). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum number of records to return."New value: +"Maximum number of records to return (max 100)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses deprecation status and the auth requirement, but says nothing about pagination, default limit behavior, or the shape of results. For a read-only list tool these gaps are moderate, not severe.
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 tight sentences with the deprecation warning front-loaded ahead of the functional description – exactly the ordering an agent needs to avoid calling it by mistake. Zero waste.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, alternative, and auth prerequisite. It stops short of describing return format or pagination, but those gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity and deprecated status.
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 single `limit` parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, including the max-100 cap), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 (List) and resource (the authenticated account's withdrawal history), and immediately flags that the tool is deprecated. An agent can distinguish it from the many sibling history/list tools without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly names the replacement (`fetch_withdrawals`) and tells the agent to use that instead, which is the strongest possible when-to-use guidance for a deprecated tool. It also states the prerequisite ('Requires API credentials').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.