get_transactionRetrieve a payment transaction and its applied invoices using a transaction ID. Provides full details of the payment and associated invoices.
One payment in full plus the invoices it was applied to. Wraps Transactions.get and Transactions.getApplied(transaction_id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transaction_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those: it is a composite of Transactions.get and Transactions.getApplied(transaction_id), which explains that the result combines two underlying calls.
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 short sentences with no filler. The return behavior is front-loaded, and the implementation note is compact and relevant.
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-only getter, the description sufficiently explains what is returned: one payment plus its applied invoices. It does not detail response shape or error behavior, but the simple schema and strong annotations reduce the need for more.
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 0%, so the description must carry meaning for transaction_id. It only mentions the parameter by name in the wrapper note and ties 'transaction' to 'payment' in the first sentence. This is thin but adequate for a single, self-explanatory integer ID.
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 opens with a concrete result: 'One payment in full plus the invoices it was applied to.' It also names the underlying calls it wraps, which makes the resource and scope explicit. This clearly distinguishes it from list-style siblings like get_client_transactions and get_invoice_payments.
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 the use case: retrieve one payment and the invoices it was applied to. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it, leaving routing to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.