List the user's financial accounts. Use this to resolve an account name mentioned in an email (e.g., 'BCA ***1234') to an accountId before calling propose- tools. If no confident match, omit accountId on the proposal - the user will pick on review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nameLike | No | Optional case-insensitive substring filter on account name (e.g., 'bca', 'robinhood', 'visa'). Omit to list all accounts. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already denote this as read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the account resolution purpose, the fallback behavior when there is no confident match, and that the user will make the final selection on review.
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. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the workflow context, and the third gives a concrete conditional behavior. 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?
For a simple one-parameter, read-only tool, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains the resolution workflow and the no-match behavior. It could optionally mention the output fields, but the accountId reference implies the key return value.
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%, and the only parameter nameLike is already described with examples and a clear omission behavior. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for full coverage.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the user's financial accounts.' It further clarifies its role by connecting it to resolving account names to accountIds before propose-* tools, which distinguishes it from the other get_* siblings and the propose/trade tools.
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?
It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to resolve an account name mentioned in an email ... before calling propose-* tools.' It also gives a clear decision rule for low-confidence matches, instructing the agent to omit accountId. It does not directly mention alternatives or negative conditions, but the workflow guidance is strong.
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.
