Fetch deposits, payouts, and other activity events for a specific virtual account to track its transaction history.
Get the activity history for a virtual account (deposits, payouts, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of events to return (default: 10) | |
| customerId | Yes | The customer ID | |
| virtualAccountId | Yes | The virtual account ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Input schema / properties / eventTypeRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Filter by event type",
- "enum": [
- "funds_scheduled",
- "funds_received",
- "payment_submitted",
- "payment_processed",
- "in_review",
- "refund",
- "microdeposit",
- "account_update",
- "deactivation",
- "activation"
- ],
- "type": "string"
-}v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it says nothing about pagination or cursors, result ordering, the time window covered, or whether history is bounded. The 'etc.' leaves the set of returned event types undefined, which matters when the agent must reason about what it will receive.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first. The trailing 'etc.' is mild filler that slightly weakens precision but costs little space.
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 paginated list-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return shape and paging behavior; it only gestures at return content via two examples. Ordering, pagination, and the meaning of the limit cap are absent, leaving real operational 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters documented in the schema including the limit default of 10. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('activity history for a virtual account') and clarifies the content with concrete event examples (deposits, payouts). An agent can distinguish it from the other virtual-account siblings (create/update/list_virtual_accounts), though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions or alternatives. It does not tell the agent how this differs from list_balance_activity or list_virtual_accounts, leaving the choice entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.