list_static_addressesRetrieve permanent deposit addresses for an account, optionally filtered by customer reference, with cursor-based pagination for deposit tracking.
Permanent deposit addresses of the account, optionally for one customer_ref. 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. | |
| customer_ref | 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 pagination behavior ('Paginated with cursor'), though the schema already documents the cursor parameter. It says nothing about ordering, what happens with an unknown customer_ref, or what each item 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 short sentences with no filler; the resource identity is front-loaded and the scope qualifier follows immediately. The fragmentary telegraphic style borders on under-specification rather than excess.
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 whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description is adequate but thin: with no output schema, an agent learns nothing about the shape of a returned address (address string, network, customer_ref) or the ordering of results.
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?
At 67% schema coverage, the two pagination params are fully documented in schema and the description only restates cursor paging. Its real contribution is clarifying that customer_ref is an optional single-customer filter — the one parameter the schema leaves bare. That is useful but minimal, so baseline 3 holds.
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?
Names the resource precisely ('permanent deposit addresses of the account'), which is a different object from the sibling list_static_address_deposits and list_static_address_networks. It's a noun phrase rather than a verb, but the listing action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with create_static_address or the two other static_address list tools, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
'optionally for one customer_ref' implies the filtered-listing use case, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_static_address_deposits or create_static_address, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is inferable from the resource name only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.