Detalhe de uma transação de cartão Wise. token é o id que apareceu como CARD_PAYMENT em wise_list_activities ou em creditCardMetadata em wise_get_balance_statement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety. Description adds context about token source but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., latency, data freshness). No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Description is very concise with two sentences and no fluff. However, it is in Portuguese while the tool name is English, which slightly reduces clarity. Structure is front-loaded but could benefit from a brief English summary.
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?
No output schema exists, yet description does not explain what is returned (only says 'Detalhe'). The optional 'account' parameter is also unexplained. Given the tool has only 2 parameters and no nested objects, the description should provide more context about outputs and the optional parameter.
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?
Description explains the 'token' parameter meaning and its relationship to other tool outputs, which adds value over schema with 0% coverage. However, the optional 'account' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving it undocumented.
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?
Description clearly states it provides details of a Wise card transaction, with specific verb and resource. Although in Portuguese, purpose is clear and mentions token provenance from sibling tools. However, language mismatch with English tool name may cause slight confusion for AI agents.
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?
Description gives guidance on where to obtain the token (from wise_list_activities or wise_get_balance_statement), which serves as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The six general MCP platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are separate from the six Wise-specific query tools (wise_get_balance_statement, wise_list_profiles, etc.). No two tools overlap in functionality.
The Wise-specific tools consistently follow the pattern 'wise_verb_noun' (e.g., wise_get_balance_statement, wise_list_profiles). The general tools use short descriptive names without a prefix, which is a minor inconsistency, but the grouping is logical and readable.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped. It provides sufficient coverage for both the MCP platform utilities and the Wise financial data integration without being bloated or sparse.
The tool set covers the core read operations for Wise (profiles, balances, transactions, card events, activities) and the essential MCP platform functions. Missing are write operations like creating transfers, but the server's focus appears to be data retrieval, so this is a minor gap.