Submit the application
Submits the completed application for review. If the partner rejects it as incomplete, the reply says what is still missing rather than failing opaquely.
Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / auth_tokenRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header.",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: incomplete submissions are rejected with a reply explaining what is missing rather than an opaque failure. The standalone 'Free' also signals cost behavior. It does not mention side effects such as locking the application or changing its status, but the disclosed failure behavior is valuable.
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 action. The opening line 'Submit the application' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, and the standalone 'Free' is terse, but the total length is appropriate and the key behavioral detail earns its place.
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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema already present, the description covers the main action, the prerequisite, and an important failure mode. It does not explain what happens after a successful submission or repeated submissions, but those gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter detail for the description to provide. The description correctly adds no parameter information, and none is needed for an agent to call this tool correctly.
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 uses a concrete verb and resource: 'Submits the completed application for review.' The action is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_banking_application, update_banking_application_details, and upload_banking_document, even without naming them explicitly.
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 phrase 'completed application' gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: only after the application has been finished. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the submission-for-review framing provides enough usage guidance for an agent.
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.