list_paymentsRetrieve account payments newest first, optionally filtered by status and paginated with a cursor for paging through results.
Payments of the account, newest first, optionally filtered by status. 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 | e.g. "confirmed". |
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, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful beyond-schema facts: results are ordered newest first and paging is cursor-based. It stops there, saying nothing about whether filters other than status exist or what the page envelope 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?
Two short clauses, front-loaded with the resource, ordering, optional filter, and pagination model. Every phrase carries information and nothing is padded.
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 zero-required-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers scope, ordering, filtering, and paging — enough to call it correctly. No output schema exists, so a brief note on the response envelope would be the only remaining gap.
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 100%, with limit bounds and the cursor semantics fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description only restates that status filtering is optional and pagination is cursor-based, adding no syntax or default detail beyond the schema.
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?
States the resource scope (payments of the account) plus ordering (newest first) and the optional status filter, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_payment or list_payouts, but the list-vs-get framing makes the intent clear.
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?
Usage is only implied through the resource description and the 'optionally filtered by status' clause; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance pointing to get_payment for single-record retrieval or list_payouts for a different resource. An agent could infer the split, but nothing is spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.