increase_list_wire_transfersList wire transfers (read-only observability; this server does NOT create transfers). Increase API: GET /wire_transfers. 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 wire transfers 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?
The description adds valuable context beyond the 'readOnlyHint' annotation by stating the server does not create transfers and highlighting the read-only observability nature. This reinforces the behavioral trait without contradiction.
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 extremely concise with two sentences covering purpose, read-only nature, API endpoint, and filtering capability. Every sentence adds value without any fluff or repetition.
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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers the essential behavioral and usage context. However, it does not explicitly describe the return format, though this is a minor gap for a list operation 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?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantic meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'Filter by account' reiterates the account_id parameter). No additional benefit is provided for limit and cursor.
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 the tool lists wire transfers, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('wire transfers'). The tool name itself distinguishes it from siblings like 'increase_list_ach_transfers' by specifying 'wire_transfers'.
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 emphasizes that the tool is for read-only observability and explicitly states it does NOT create transfers, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the tool name and resource type inherently differentiate it from sibling list tools.
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.