List bank account transactions page by page. Each entry shows amounts in cents plus annotated dollar values, helping you review account activity.
List transactions for a bank account (paginated; amounts in cents, *_dollars annotated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items per page (1-100) | |
| cursor | No | Opaque cursor from the previous page's `cursor` field | |
| account_id | Yes | Required -- transactions are listed per account |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that results are paginated, that amounts are in cents, and that *_dollars fields are annotated, which is valuable beyond what the schema shows. It does not describe ordering, filtering, or exact response fields, but for a list operation this is reasonably transparent.
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 entire definition is one well-formed sentence with key operational details front-loaded in a parenthetical. Every phrase conveys useful information: resource, scope, pagination, and unit of measure. There is no redundancy or filler.
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?
The description covers the core facts an agent needs: what is listed, for which resource, that pagination applies, and how amounts are represented. There is no output schema, so a fuller description of return fields or ordering would be beneficial, but the definition is still adequate for correct invocation.
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 every parameter already has a clear meaning in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the overall pagination and amount-format context, matching the baseline expectation.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('transactions'), and scope ('for a bank account'). It also adds essential context about pagination and amount formatting, which distinguishes it from sibling get/list tools like lemma_get_transaction and lemma_list_bank_accounts.
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?
The description implies use when listing all transactions for an account and mentions pagination, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. An agent must infer that lemma_get_transaction is for a single transaction; no 'use X instead' guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.