Wise MCP Server

How a transfer was paid

list_transfer_payments

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve payments made into a Wise transfer, including payment method, amount, currency, and timing; returns an empty list until the transfer is paid.

Instructions

The payments made into a transfer: method (balance, bank transfer, card), amount, currency and when. Empty until it has been paid.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "list_transfer_payments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The transfer id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world call. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it explains the payment methods returned and the important empty-state behavior before the transfer is paid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is compact and front-loads the returned resource, then adds the empty-state caveat in a short second sentence. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the returned fields and describes when the list will be empty. Minor gaps remain around result shape, ordering, or pagination, but nothing critical blocks correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter, id, is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage. The description does not add further meaning to that parameter, so the schema carries the parameter semantics and the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource as the payments made into a transfer and enumerates the returned fields: method, amount, currency, and timing. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as get_transfer or get_receipt, which may also expose payment-related information.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states that results are empty until the transfer has been paid, which is useful precondition context, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to call this instead of get_transfer, list_transfers, or get_receipt. The agent must infer the usage scenario from the tool name and resource description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.