list_conversionsRetrieve your account's conversion history, newest first, and paginate results with a cursor to browse or filter by status.
Conversions of the account, newest first. Paginated with cursor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Items per page (1–100). | |
| cursor | No | Pass meta.next_cursor of the previous page to get the next one. | |
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are ordered newest first and pagination is cursor-based. It says nothing about rate limits, total counts, or what a conversion record contains.
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 tight fragments with no filler, and the most important facts (scope, ordering, pagination) are front-loaded. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented status filter, but nothing is wasted.
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 should say more about what a conversion record looks like or how the cursor loop terminates, and it should cover the status filter. Annotations carry the safety burden, so the remaining gaps are moderate rather than fatal.
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 coverage is 67%: limit and cursor are well documented in the schema and the description only echoes the cursor pagination idea. The 'status' parameter has no description and no enum, and the description never mentions that filtering by status is even possible, leaving a real gap uncompensated.
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 names the resource (conversions) and the scope (of the account) plus the ordering (newest first), which is enough to distinguish it from get_conversion or the create_* siblings. It is a noun phrase with no explicit verb, but the intent is unambiguous.
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 statement of when to use this versus get_conversion (single item) or list_transactions, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the 'of the account' scoping.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.