Checks whether the wallet/customer has performed an ID document scan and AML check
Checks whether the wallet/customer has performed an ID document scan and AML check. @param api_key: The api key allocated to your application @param token: The wallet_api_token provided by /access/login @param wallet_fk: The wallet_fk provided by /access/login
@return: a json object
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| api_key | Yes | ||
| wallet_fk | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but never says so, and gives no information about permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether a failed/absent KYC result is returned as an error or as data. '@return: a json object' conveys essentially nothing about 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?
The core sentence is duplicated verbatim at the top of the description, which is pure waste. The remainder is raw JSDoc annotation syntax rather than prose front-loaded for an agent. Content volume is small, but structure and redundancy are both defective.
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?
All three required parameters are documented with their provenance, which covers the invocation essentials for a 3-param tool. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the check returns and how the lite variant differs from the full KYC check, and it does neither.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does document all three parameters. The token and wallet_fk entries add real value by naming /access/login as the source, telling the agent which call must precede this one. The api_key entry is closer to tautology, keeping it out of 5 territory.
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: checking whether a wallet/customer has completed an ID document scan and AML check. That is a concrete, recognizable operation. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling netfluid__wallet_kyc_check (the non-lite variant) or wallet_kyc_session_create, so an agent cannot tell from the description which KYC entry point 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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling KYC tools. The only implicit guidance is the parameter provenance chain (token/wallet_fk from /access/login), which is not framed as usage advice.
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.