neuron_request_payoutRequest a payout to transfer funds from the organization wallet to the linked bank account. A bank account must be saved first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Amount to transfer in the smallest currency unit — kobo for NGN (e.g., 100000 = NGN 1,000) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With minimal annotations (readOnlyHint false), the description conveys that the tool transfers funds, which is a write operation. But it lacks details on potential errors, limits, or whether the action is reversible. More behavioral context would be beneficial.
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?
Two sentences: first states the action, second states a prerequisite. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the main purpose.
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 gives the core purpose and a prerequisite but does not mention what the response contains (e.g., payout details or confirmation). Since there is no output schema, adding that information would improve completeness.
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 coverage is 100%; the schema already describes the amount parameter with unit and constraints. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 requests a payout from the organization wallet to the linked bank account, using specific verb 'request' and resource 'payout'. It distinguishes from siblings like neuron_save_bank_account and neuron_verify_bank_account.
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?
Explicitly states the prerequisite that a bank account must be saved first, guiding the agent to ensure that step is complete before calling this tool. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over other payout-related tools.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource type, but there is meaningful overlap in messaging entry points (send_message, send_whatsapp, compose_message, bot_api_send) and contact ingestion/sync tools (import_contacts, populate_contacts, sync_whatsapp_contacts). The descriptions help disambiguate, but with 309 tools an agent will frequently need to read closely to pick the right one.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*. Minor deviations like sales_stats, lead_stats, wallet_balance, and whoami break the pattern slightly, but overall naming is highly predictable.
309 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, even a broad platform. This creates significant cognitive load and navigation overhead for agents, and far exceeds the well-scoped 3-15 tool range where coherence is strongest.
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive across bots, contacts, campaigns, flows, knowledge bases, personas, marketplace, wallet, and products. Minor gaps exist — lead sources lack update/delete tools, and there is no single get_task or get_webhook alongside their list/update/delete counterparts — but these are workable gaps rather than dead ends.