List account cash movements with cursor pagination and optional ISO-8601 start time. Provides read-only access to transaction history for controlled account monitoring.
List account cash movements with cursor pagination, optionally from an ISO-8601 time. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time | No | ISO-8601 start time. | |
| limit | No | Items to return (1–50; API default is 20). | |
| cursor | No | Cursor from a previous response's nextPagePath. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses read-only behavior and cursor pagination, which is useful. However, it does not mention what the response looks like, whether the cursor is required for subsequent pages, or any rate-limit or auth considerations. The description adds some behavioral context but is not rich.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose, pagination behavior, optional time filter, and read-only nature. Every phrase earns its place with no wasted words.
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-only list tool with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent might benefit from knowing the response shape or how to use nextPagePath for pagination. The description is complete enough for basic invocation but leaves pagination mechanics implicit.
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 adds the 'optional' qualifier for time and mentions cursor pagination, which slightly reinforces the cursor parameter's role. However, it does not add meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions, so 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?
The description states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('account cash movements'), and key behaviors (cursor pagination, optional ISO-8601 time, read-only). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_cash or get_positions, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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 description implies usage context: it is a read-only listing tool with pagination and optional time filtering. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_cash or get_historical_orders, nor does it mention exclusions. The read-only hint and pagination details give some guidance, but no explicit alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.