Retrieve bank movements for a treasury account with cursor-based pagination to track transactions and reconcile records.
List bank movements of a treasury account (Holded API v2, official endpoint — replaces the experimental internal banking tools). Cursor-paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items per page | |
| cursor | No | Cursor from a previous response nextCursor | |
| accountId | Yes | Bank account ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does add useful behavioral context ('Cursor-paginated') and identifies the official v2 endpoint, but does not disclose return format, permissions requirements, or ordering, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a discovery-oriented read tool.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The pagination behavior and endpoint provenance are stated without waste; every clause earns its place.
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 read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and pagination adequately. It stops short of explaining ordering or what fields movements contain, which keeps it from a 5.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters including limit and cursor. The description's 'Cursor-paginated' merely echoes the schema and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it; baseline 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('List bank movements') scoped to 'a treasury account', which distinguishes it from create_bank_movement and reconcile_bank_movement. It notes it replaces experimental internal tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_cash_movements, so it is not fully sibling-differentiated.
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?
The parenthetical 'replaces the experimental internal banking tools' implies a migration preference for this endpoint, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., vs list_cash_movements) and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.