aba_routing_checkValidate a US ABA routing number by its (3,7,1)-weight mod-10 checksum.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| aba_routing | Yes | 9-digit US bank routing number. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| valid | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes | ||
| country | No | ||
| normalized | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, covering side-effect safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by explaining the local checksum validation algorithm. It does not contradict the annotations, and the output schema covers return-value behavior.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence contains the essential verb, resource, and algorithm with zero filler. Every word 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 simple, single-parameter validation tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. The agent knows what to pass, what the operation is, and that it is safe/idempotent.
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, aba_routing, is fully described as a '9-digit US bank routing number.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the algorithm context, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Validate') and a specific resource ('US ABA routing number'), and further distinguishes the tool by naming the exact checksum method ('(3,7,1)-weight mod-10 checksum'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling validators such as luhn_check or iban_check.
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 clear usage context: use this tool when validating a US ABA routing number. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the intended scope is unambiguous for such a targeted validator.
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 identifier type or data source: every checksum validation is for a specific standard (IBAN, LEI, VAT, etc.), and the on-chain and rental tools are clearly separate domains. There is no ambiguity between tools; even similar-sounding checks like 'luhn_check' and 'ean13_check' are distinct algorithms with explicit descriptions.
Most validation tools follow a 'X_check' pattern (iban_check, swift_bic_check, ein_format_check), but others deviate: 'company_number_format' uses a noun_noun structure, 'block_info' is noun_noun, and 'batch_validate' and 'context_distill' use verbs. While the pattern is not uniform, the names are readable and the convention is understandable, just not fully consistent.
With 28 tools, this server exceeds the typical 3-15 well-scoped range and even the 16-25 heavy range. The server covers multiple unrelated domains (identifier validation, blockchain queries, rental fraud, text processing), which inflates the count. While each tool is individually justified, the overall surface feels overly broad for a single MCP server.
For each sub-domain, coverage is strong: identifier validation includes a wide range of international standards, on-chain queries cover balances, activity, and settlement history, and rental tools provide risk, verdict, and deposit guard. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no country-specific tax IDs beyond what's listed, no transaction history for arbitrary tokens), but the visible coverage is comprehensive for the stated purposes.