Find transactions by description, merchant, or date range to track spending and analyze financial activity.
Search transactions by description or merchant
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search term for transaction description or merchant | |
| end_date | No | End date for search (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| start_date | No | Start date for search (YYYY-MM-DD) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is searched and does not mention whether the search is case-insensitive, how date filters interact, whether pagination exists, what result limits apply, or what the response shape looks like.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the key action and target. However, the terseness contributes to the lack of usage guidance and behavioral context, so it does not merit a perfect 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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient for basic invocation: the required query term and optional date range are documented. But with no annotations, it lacks enough behavioral context about result expectations and search semantics to be considered complete.
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. The description restates the query concept from the schema ('description or merchant') but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('transactions') and the exact search dimensions ('description or merchant'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_transactions, get_account_details, and get_categories because it defines the filtering basis.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_transactions. The description implies 'search by term' but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or a preferred alternative for listing all transactions without a search term.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.