Retrieve all transactions for a payment method using its token. Paginate and sort results to review payment activity.
Lists transactions for a specific payment method. This tool ONLY reads data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | No | Sort order | |
| since_token | No | Pagination token | |
| payment_method_token | Yes | The token of the payment method |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description redundantly states 'ONLY reads data' but adds no additional behavioral traits beyond what the schema or annotations provide. No mention of pagination, sorting, rate limits, or other behaviors.
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 sentences, no waste, and the first sentence carries the main purpose. However, the second sentence is slightly redundant with the annotation. Still concise and well-structured.
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?
Given no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what transaction data is returned, sorting behavior, or pagination beyond parameter descriptions. For a list tool with 3 parameters, more context would be helpful.
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 100% for all three parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. 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?
Description clearly states the verb (lists), the resource (transactions), and the scope (for a specific payment method). It distinguishes from siblings like spreedly_transaction_list which is likely for all 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?
The description implies usage context (for a specific payment method) but provides no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like spreedly_transaction_list or spreedly_payment_method_list. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.