Retrieve documents attached to a transfer or payment route deposit, ordered newest first. Use the transfer ID or deposit ID to view associated files.
List the documents attached to a transfer or a payment route deposit, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| on | Yes | What the document belongs to: a transfer, or a deposit on a payment route | |
| transactionId | Yes | The transfer ID, or the deposit ID from get_virtual_account_history |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the sort order ('newest first'), which is useful, but it does not mention pagination, authentication requirements, or the shape of returned document objects. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not stated.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element—verb, resource, scope, and ordering—earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description states what is listed, the two parent types, and the ordering. It does not describe the response fields or pagination, but it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly given the schema.
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%, so the schema already fully documents both 'on' and 'transactionId', including the enum values and the source of the deposit ID. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('List the documents') and states the exact scope ('attached to a transfer or a payment route deposit'). It also specifies ordering ('newest first'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_document or get_document_download_url. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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 when the tool applies by naming the two possible parent objects (transfer or deposit), but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_document_download_url. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.