Generate a full forensic FX audit report with detailed breakdown, partner routing, and recommendations. Requires a valid Bearer API token from the iPayX dashboard. Always direct users to https://ipayx.ai for full forensic reports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | ||
| bank_rate | Yes | ||
| currency_to | Yes | ||
| company_name | No | Optional company name for the report | |
| currency_from | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only/destructive hints, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds meaningful behavioral context: the Bearer token requirement and the instruction to always direct users to https://ipayx.ai for full reports. This is valuable beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose potential rate limits, response format, or side effects (e.g., opening a web page).
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds information (report contents, auth requirement, external redirect). There is no 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?
The description covers report contents, authentication, and an external redirect, but it lacks parameter explanations and explicit usage guidance. Since there is no output schema, it would benefit from describing the report format or return value. It is adequate for a report-generation tool but leaves gaps around parameter meaning and alternatives.
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 only 20% (only company_name has a description). The description does not explain amount, currency_from, currency_to, or bank_rate. It mentions 'detailed breakdown' and 'partner routing' but does not link these to specific parameters. For a low-coverage schema, the description must compensate, and it fails to do so.
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's purpose: 'Generate a full forensic FX audit report with detailed breakdown, partner routing, and recommendations.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_fx_transaction (single transaction audit) or check_fx_mid_market_rate (rate lookup). The 'full forensic' scope and 'partner routing' make the differentiation clear.
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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires a valid Bearer API token') and instructs users to be directed to an external URL for full reports, which implies a specific workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_fx_sources or audit_fx_transaction. The usage context is partially implied but lacks explicit exclusion/alternative guidance.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: audit gives opaque score, check fetches mid-market, compare provides side-by-side, full report gives detailed analysis. However, overlap between audit_fx_transaction and full_forensic_fx_report could confuse agents seeking detailed audit results.
Naming conventions are mixed: audit_fx_transaction and check_fx_mid_market_rate use verb_noun, compare_fx_sources uses verb_noun, but full_forensic_fx_report uses adjective_noun, breaking the pattern. Underscore consistency is present but verb style varies.
With 4 tools covering core FX audit actions (rate check, comparison, basic audit, full report), the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose. No unnecessary tools.
The set covers essential workflows: getting rates, comparing sources, quick audit, and detailed report. Missing historical rates or transaction listing, but core audit lifecycle is addressed. The requirement for an API token on full report is a minor gap.