List all Recipient Bank Accounts (RBAs) on this wallet
List all Recipient Bank Accounts (RBAs) on this wallet @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?
Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or whether the list can be empty. The @param notes hint at auth (token from /access/login, api_key per application) but only implicitly, offering little behavioral context for a list operation.
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 opening sentence is duplicated verbatim, wasting space, and the closing '@return: a json object' contributes nothing. The useful param notes are buried in boilerplate rather than front-loaded.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a 0%-coverage input schema, the description should shoulder more. It omits return shape, pagination behavior, and its relationship to sibling RBA tools, leaving an agent under-informed for a required-3-param call.
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 0% and all three params are required, so the description must compensate. It does document all three (@param api_key, token, wallet_fk), and the origin notes ('provided by /access/login') add real value, but wallet_fk's definition is tautological and no format/type guidance is given. Partial compensation merits a middle score.
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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('Recipient Bank Accounts (RBAs)') with the scope qualifier 'on this wallet'. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling netfluid__wallet_rba (presumably the create/register counterpart), so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites stated, and no alternatives named. The reader must infer that this is the read-side companion to netfluid__wallet_rba entirely on their own.
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.