The US bank account — account number and routing number — plus the USDC address on Base. This is the banking half, so it needs verification to be approved; before that it refuses. On and off ramps are free. For a wallet address that works right now, without verification, use get_wallets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| onboarding_token | Yes | The token returned by create_account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavior beyond annotations: the tool requires verification approval before it will work, and it refuses otherwise. It also notes that on/off ramps are free. This adds meaningful context not present in the annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core content. Every sentence adds value: what the tool returns, the verification requirement, the fee note, and the pointer to the alternative tool. There is no 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?
Given one well-documented parameter and clear behavioral notes, the description covers what the agent needs to know. It explains the verification gate, the alternative for immediate use, and the nature of the returned data. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently indicates the return content.
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?
There is only one parameter, onboarding_token, and the schema already describes it as 'The token returned by create_account.' Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool's resource: the US bank account details (account/routing number) plus USDC address on Base. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_wallets by noting that get_wallets provides an immediately usable wallet address without verification. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 states when this tool is usable: only after verification is approved, and it refuses before that. It explicitly routes the agent to get_wallets when a wallet address that works right now without verification is needed. This is strong usage differentiation.
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.