Retrieve transaction summaries for a specific gateway to review payment activity, filter by state, and paginate results.
Lists transactions processed through a specific gateway. Returns transaction summaries. This tool ONLY reads data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | No | Sort order | |
| state | No | Transaction states to return | |
| since_token | No | Pagination token | |
| gateway_token | Yes | The token of the gateway |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so the description's claim 'This tool ONLY reads data' adds no new behavioral insight. No mention of pagination, response structure, or rate limits. Acceptable but does not go beyond annotations.
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 concise sentences with no redundant content. Front-loaded with the purpose and ends with a safety note. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what 'transaction summaries' contain, how pagination works via since_token, or the default ordering. Given full schema descriptions and annotations, it meets minimum viability but leaves gaps.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter (order, state, since_token, gateway_token). The description adds no additional parameter context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states it lists transactions for a specific gateway using 'Lists transactions processed through a specific gateway'. Implicitly distinguishes from broader list tools like spreedly_transaction_list but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like spreedly_payment_method_list_transactions.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spreedly_transaction_list or spreedly_payment_method_list_transactions. Only implies a gateway token is needed; lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.