wealthapi-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_bookings

Retrieve investment bookings including buys, sells, dividends, and splits. Filter by security (ISIN), depot, date range, or booking type to review trade history.

Instructions

List investment bookings: buys, sells, dividends, splits. Use this to see the trade history for a specific security or depot.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`isin`	No	Filter by ISIN
`type`	No	Filter by booking type(s)
`maxDate`	No	End date (yyyy-MM-dd)
`minDate`	No	Start date (yyyy-MM-dd)
`perPage`	No	Max results to return (up to 500)
`accountId`	No	Depot ID(s) to filter by

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the nature (listing bookings) and gives an intended use, but does not mention pagination, limitations, or return behavior. The schema covers perPage limits, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the name implies.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a practical usage hint. No filler.

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 list tool with 6 parameters fully described in the schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context. It could clarify the distinction from list_transactions or the extra enum types, but overall it is sufficient.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by relating filters to 'specific security or depot' (isin/accountId) and enumerates several booking types. However, it omits 'book_in' and 'book_out' from the enum.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool lists investment bookings with specific types (buys, sells, dividends, splits). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_transactions and get_dividend_history.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides a clear use case: 'see the trade history for a specific security or depot.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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