modern_treasury_create_counterpartyCreates a counterparty (contact) record in Modern Treasury. Creates a record only — no bank details, MOVES NO MONEY. API: POST /counterparties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Counterparty (contact) name. | |
| No | Counterparty email. | ||
| metadata | No | Arbitrary string key/value metadata. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description clarifies it is a record creation with no money movement. However, it does not explain what 'destructive' means in this context (e.g., irreversibility, implications of creation). The description adds some context beyond annotations but is not fully transparent.
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 sentences long, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the full schema coverage and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function. It could mention the return value (the created counterparty object) or potential errors for completeness.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description does not add additional meaning or elaboration beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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 clearly states the action (creates), the resource (counterparty/contact), and the scope (record only, no bank details, no money movement). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with bank details or financial transactions.
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?
The description implies usage for creating a simple counterparty contact without financial details. It does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. The sibling list provides context, but more direct guidance would help.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource (counterparty, ledger account, payment order, etc.) with clear actions (create, get, list, ping). There is no ambiguity between tools.
All tools follow a consistent 'modern_treasury_verb_singular_or_plural_resource' pattern in snake_case. The naming is uniform and predictable.
17 tools cover multiple financial entities and operations, which is reasonable for a treasury API. It's on the higher end but not excessive given the domain.
The tool set is heavily read-only, with only one create operation (counterparty). Missing create/update/delete for payment orders, ledger transactions, and other core actions, which severely limits functionality for a treasury system.