Public no-charge UK tool for gb.bank_account_ownership.verify.v1 (SOURCE_CONDITIONED). Claims are limited to the named official sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: 'SOURCE_CONDITIONED' and 'Claims are limited to the named official sources' clarify that results depend on official sources and are scoped. It also discloses the tool is public and no-charge. No contradiction with annotations; this exceeds the baseline by providing behavioral nuance beyond the structured hints.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the key facts (public, no-charge, UK, purpose). It is concise with no filler. However, the technical identifier 'gb.bank_account_ownership.verify.v1' and 'SOURCE_CONDITIONED' introduce jargon that may reduce clarity for some agents, but overall it remains efficient.
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 tool with no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential traits: public, no-charge, UK scope, source-conditioned claims. It does not explain what 'SOURCE_CONDITIONED' means in detail, but the explicit 'Claims are limited to the named official sources' provides sufficient context. Given the output schema exists, return value details are not required.
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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema provides no parameter details and the description does not need to explain any. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed. The schema's additionalProperties: true suggests arbitrary properties might be accepted, but the description does not clarify; this is a minor gap but not critical given zero documented parameters.
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 identifies the resource (UK bank account ownership) and the action (verify via the API endpoint gb.bank_account_ownership.verify.v1). It adds scope (UK, public no-charge, source-conditioned) and distinguishes from sibling verification tools by name and resource. However, it relies on the tool name for the primary verb; the description itself does not explicitly state 'verifies bank account ownership' in plain language.
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 from the tool name and the UK-specific context; the description mentions 'Public no-charge UK tool' which suggests suitability for cost-sensitive UK checks. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor are alternative sibling tools mentioned. The guidance is mostly implicit.
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.
Multiple tools appear to address the same action with only country or payment-model differences, such as company_check/run_uk_company_check, approve_supplier/approve_uk_supplier, authorize_payment/run_uk_payment_authorization, and screen_restricted_party/screen_restricted_business_party. Even with descriptions, an agent will struggle to pick the intended tool reliably.
Naming mixes bare global verbs (company_check, approve_supplier, authorize_payment) with UK-prefixed variants (run_uk_company_check, approve_uk_supplier, authorize_uk_business_payment), plus free-form names like counterfactual, preflight, quote, and capabilities. There is no single consistent verb_noun or country-modifier convention across the set.
46 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface, and the set carries heavy duplication through global/UK/free/paid variants. While the domain may justify multiple country-specific operations, the tool count itself will overwhelm agents and make selection harder.
The server covers the main compliance lifecycle well: discovery (capabilities, preflight, quote, resolve_agent_intent), verification, supplier approval, payment authorization, invoice matching, passport issuance/refresh, and verification receipts. Minor gaps exist around explicit cancellation/revocation or list/search operations, but core workflows have no major dead ends.