payping_list_withdrawalsList PayPing settlements (withdrawals to your bank account) with date, amount in Toman, code, payout status, and total count. Supports limit and offset for paging.
List settlements (withdrawals to your bank account): date, amount (Toman), code and whether it was paid out, plus the total count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Items to return, 1-50. | |
| offset | No | Skip this many items (paging). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Items to return, 1-50 (PayPing's maximum is 50)."New value: +"Items to return, 1-50."Input schema / properties / limit / titleRemoved value: -"Limit"Input schema / properties / offset / titleRemoved value: -"Offset"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"payping_list_withdrawalsArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "payping_list_withdrawalsDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description does add useful domain context (amount is in Toman, includes a paid-out flag and total count), but says nothing about ordering, paging behavior, or rate limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource and then enumerates the salient return fields. No filler, no redundancy with the title.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields (date, amount, code, paid status, total count), which is exactly what the agent needs to judge relevance. Only the absence of paging/ordering guidance and sibling routing keeps it short of full completeness.
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 limit and offset are already documented in the schema including defaults and ranges. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('settlements (withdrawals to your bank account)'), and even disambiguates the domain term settlement with the common-language equivalent. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling payping_get_withdrawal, but the list-vs-get distinction is inferable from the names.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus payping_get_withdrawal or payping_list_transactions, and no mention of paging workflow despite limit/offset parameters. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.