ibangen-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description's contribution is the return-content profile (BIC, domestic code, sample IBANs, bank page, Bank Target Pack link, 250-IBAN cap), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about failure behavior when a bank is not found or about licensing/validity caveats of 'test' IBANs.

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?

One sentence, no padding, but it is a headless noun phrase with the actual action buried and the 250-IBAN limit appearing mid-clause. It is compact yet not front-loaded on what the tool does.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters, no output schema and clean read-only annotations, the description's enumeration of returned fields is the main missing piece and it supplies it. What remains thin is how a lookup miss behaves, but overall an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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%: 'bank' already documents that it accepts a name, BIC or domestic bank code, and 'country' accepts a name or ISO code. The description merely echoes those accepted forms, adding no extra syntax or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 is a noun phrase describing the payload ("A bank's BIC, domestic bank code and free sample test IBANs...") rather than stating a verb+resource action. An agent can infer this is a per-bank lookup of test IBANs, and that distinguishes it loosely from generate_test_ibans, but the purpose must be reconstructed from the return-value list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus generate_test_ibans, calculate_iban, or validate_ibans, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., that a known bank and country are required). The only implicit cue is the phrase "for one bank".

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: it computes IBAN check digits and, where the country has them, national check digits such as the French RIB key or Italian CIN — explaining why check_digits is sometimes supplied and sometimes derived.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the non-obvious check-digit behavior, then the pointer to iban_format. No filler and the most surprising detail (national check digits) is placed prominently.

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 computation tool with no output schema, it explains enough about what is derived versus supplied for an agent to call it correctly. It does not cover failure behavior (invalid account length, wrong code for country) or the shape of the returned IBAN, which would complete the picture.

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 only 40%, so the description must carry weight, and it does: it maps bank_code/branch_code/account_number to 'national bank details' and clarifies that check_digits are supplied only where they are not computed. It still leaves country-format expectations to iban_format rather than restating them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Build an IBAN from national bank details') and names the component inputs, so it is clearly distinguishable from validate_ibans or generate_test_ibans. It does not explicitly say it does not validate, but the construction framing is unambiguous.

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?

Points the agent at iban_format to discover which parts a given country requires, which is exactly the prerequisite knowledge needed before calling. No explicit when-not-to-use or a contrast with validate_ibans, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover read-only and closed-world hints, yet the description still adds real value: rate limits per key tier, data provenance (synthetic but checksum-valid, real bank codes), and a safety boundary against payment use. It stops short of saying calls are non-idempotent/randomized, which the idempotentHint=false annotation implies but the text never confirms.

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?

Four dense sentences that front-load the capability and then layer scope, limits, and the safety caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing repeats the name or the schema.

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?

This is a simple 3-parameter generator with no output schema, and the description covers provenance, limits, and intended use. The one remaining gap is that it doesn't say what is returned (a list of IBAN strings of length quantity), which an agent must infer.

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 67% — country and bank are documented there, but quantity has no description. The description compensates for bank ('Name a bank to get IBANs of that bank') and explains the daily cap that constrains quantity, though it never clarifies whether quantity caps at 100 or at the key-tier limit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate synthetic, checksum-valid test IBANs for a country') plus scope details like 119 countries and real bank codes. It doesn't differentiate itself from the sibling tools (bank_test_ibans, calculate_iban, validate_ibans), so an agent must infer which generator to pick.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: quotas without an API key (10/day), and that naming a bank yields that bank's IBANs with free samples or unlimited with a paid key. It also gives an exclusion ('Test data only, never for payments') but never names a sibling tool as the alternative for validation/calculation tasks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the returned data fields, including SEPA membership, currency, regex, and an example IBAN, but it does not disclose error behavior for unsupported countries or any other operational traits.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the returned fields without wasted words. It could be slightly clearer with an explicit action verb, but it is appropriately sized for a lookup tool.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key fields the tool returns. It does not mention behavior for unknown or unsupported country inputs, but otherwise gives enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 single parameter is documented as 'Country name or ISO code.' The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already 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 makes clear that the tool provides country-specific IBAN format metadata, listing the exact fields returned such as length, structure, SEPA membership, currency, and regex. It is specific about the resource, but it does not explicitly name a verb or distinguish itself from siblings like validate_ibans or calculate_iban.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculate_iban, validate_ibans, or generate_test_ibans. The implied use case is looking up a country's IBAN format, but no conditions, exclusions, or sibling routing are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the check-digit layers performed, the unauthenticated batch limit of 10 (vs. maxItems 100 in the schema), and the semantic ceiling of the result. It stops short of describing the response shape.

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 dense sentences: the validation scope is front-loaded, then the quota and the semantic caveat. No filler and nothing redundant with title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what comes back — per-IBAN validity flags, error strings, or a boolean — and it does not. It is otherwise complete on inputs and semantics for a one-parameter validator.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('IBANs, spaces allowed'), so the schema already carries the burden; baseline 3 applies. The description does add the effective per-call batch limit of 10 without a key, which materially affects how the agent sizes the array.

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?

Specific verb+resource with an enumeration of exactly what is checked (country format, length, MOD-97, national check digit). The closing line implicitly separates it from bank_test_ibans by stating it does not prove the account exists, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'does not prove the account exists' caveat hints that bank_test_ibans is the alternative for existence checks, but the description never explicitly routes the agent there or names when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.