ashar_create_customer_bank_accountAdds a bank account to a customer record and returns the created account for use in exchange payouts and transfers.
Add a bank account to a customer.
Args:
customer_id (string): the customer id
body (object): the bank account payload
Returns the created bank account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Bank account payload | |
| customer_id | Yes | Customer id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description performs its role by confirming the tool is an addition/creation operation ('Add a bank account'). However, since the annotations provide critical operational hints (`readOnlyHint: false`), the description adds no significant new behavioral traits (like error handling or rate limiting) beyond these 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 definition is extremely concise, stating the action and necessary arguments in just two sentences without any wasted words, and follows a direct functional structure.
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?
While it provides all necessary input parameters, the description is incomplete regarding the output. Since there is no output schema, the agent relies solely on the implicit promise of the verb 'Returns the created bank account,' which is a minimal level of completeness for a mutation tool.
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?
Given that schema description coverage is 100%, the input parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description merely re-iterates the standard names 'customer id' and 'bank account payload,' providing no added semantic value beyond the structured data.
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 defines the action as adding/creating a bank account for a customer. While the tool name is highly specific, it doesn't explicitly differentiate its scope from related tools like 'create bank account' sibling tools, making the purpose clear but not maximally precise.
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 provides zero guidance on when this tool should be used relative to other existing banking or customer tools (e.g., should this be used when `ashar_create_bank_account` exists?). It offers no contextual usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.