Retrieve transfers and filter by status, type, or customer ID to track payment progress or locate specific transactions.
List transfers with optional filters for status, type, or customer
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by transfer type | |
| status | No | Filter by transfer status | |
| pageSize | No | Number of transfers per page (default: 20) | |
| pageToken | No | Token for the next page of results | |
| customerId | No | Filter by customer ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Input schema / properties / status / enumPrevious value: -[
- "CREATED",
- "COMPLIANCE_HOLD",
- "AWAITING_FUNDS_COLLECTION",
- "FUNDS_COLLECTED",
- "PAYMENT_SUBMITTED",
- "PAYMENT_PROCESSED",
- "COMPLETED",
- "FAILED",
- "CANCELLED",
- "EXPIRED"
-]New value: +[
+ "created",
+ "compliance_hold",
+ "awaiting_funds_collection",
+ "funds_collected",
+ "in_progress",
+ "payment_submitted",
+ "payment_processed",
+ "completed",
+ "failed",
+ "cancelled",
+ "expired"
+]Input schema / properties / type / enumPrevious value: -[
- "TRANSFER_TYPE_ONRAMP",
- "TRANSFER_TYPE_OFFRAMP"
-]New value: +[
+ "onramp",
+ "offramp"
+]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. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, does not mention pagination behavior (despite pageSize/pageToken params), sorting, or default result ordering.
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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and the filter scope attached. No waste, though it leans toward under-specification rather than tight completeness.
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 5-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but omits read-only semantics and pagination behavior. The schema covers the parameters, so the remaining gap is behavioral context.
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 documents all five parameters including enums and the pagination token. The description only echoes the filter dimensions and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('transfers') and names the filter dimensions. It implicitly distinguishes from get_transfer (single) and create_transfer, but never names or contrasts with those siblings 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?
It notes the filters are optional but gives no guidance on when to use this versus get_transfer for a single record or create_transfer. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing cues are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.