txn_get_transactionRetrieve a single settled New Zealand open banking transaction by its Akahu transaction ID to verify amount, date, and details for reconciliation or auditing.
Fetch one settled transaction by id.
Returns the same shape as one entry in get_transactions["transactions"].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transaction_id | Yes | Akahu transaction id (e.g. "txn_a1b2c3"). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, and the output schema covers the return value, so the remaining burden is light. The description does add meaningful context: it says the lookup is restricted to settled transactions, implying pending ones are excluded, but it does not say what happens for an unknown id or whether pending ids error out.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the identifying scope ('one settled transaction by id') front-loaded. The second sentence carries non-redundant information linking the return shape to a sibling tool.
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 single-record read with an output schema and one fully documented parameter, the description covers what to expect from the response shape. Minor gaps remain around not-found behavior and the settled/pending boundary, but nothing critical to a correct call is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the Akahu transaction id format with an example. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one settled transaction by id'), and the singular plus 'settled' qualifier distinguishes it from the plural list and pending siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the contrast.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'by id' and 'one' – the agent can infer this is the single-record lookup when an id is already known. No alternative is named (txn_get_transactions_by_ids, txn_search_transactions), and no when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.