Flag a user's transactions exceeding a specified threshold amount to surface potential spending anomalies.
Returns transactions for a user that exceed the provided threshold amount.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | The ID of the user | |
| threshold | Yes | The threshold amount to flag transactions above |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read-only operation via 'Returns', but gives no information about permissions, error handling, pagination, rate limits, or the format of the returned transactions.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action and filter condition without any filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple 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?
Given the tool's low complexity and fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally describe the return format or behavior more fully; the current text leaves the agent guessing about what 'transactions' includes.
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%, meaning both parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond restating the threshold condition, so the baseline score of 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 (Returns), resource (transactions), scope (for a user), and filtering condition (exceed threshold). This clearly distinguishes it from a generic transaction list tool, though it never explicitly names the sibling 'get_user_transactions' as an alternative.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tool 'get_user_transactions'. The threshold condition implies a filtered view, but the description neither states use cases nor mentions alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.