increase_list_declined_transactionsList declined transactions. Increase API: GET /declined_transactions. Filter by account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1–100. Default 100. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response's next_cursor. | |
| account_id | No | Only declined transactions for this account id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'GET /declined_transactions' which reinforces read-only behavior. However, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, idempotency) are disclosed beyond what annotations provide.
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 sentences, no unnecessary words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second adds endpoint and filtering capability. Highly efficient.
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 states the tool lists declined transactions but doesn't describe the return structure (e.g., pagination, fields). The cursor parameter hints at pagination, but the description could be more complete for a tool with no output schema.
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%, so parameters (limit, cursor, account_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'Filter by account' which is redundant with the account_id parameter description, adding no new meaning.
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?
Description clearly specifies 'List declined transactions' and gives the API endpoint. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'increase_list_transactions' which lists all transactions, so the agent knows this tool is for declined ones only.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'increase_list_transactions' or 'increase_list_pending_transactions'. The description only says 'Filter by account' without explaining when filtering is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource type (account, account number, ACH transfer, etc.) with clear verb_noun naming, making them easily distinguishable.
All tools follow a consistent `increase_verb_noun` pattern in snake_case, with verbs like create, get, list, lookup.
18 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the scope of banking operations (accounts, transfers, transactions, cards, entities) justifies the count.
The server is heavily read-only with only one mutation (create_external_account). Missing create/update/delete for accounts, transfers, cards, etc., which limits its usefulness for full banking workflows.