ashar_create_customer_virtual_accountCreates a virtual account for a customer using a customer ID and virtual account payload, returning the created account.
Create a virtual account for a customer.
Args:
customer_id (string): the customer id
body (object): the virtual account payload
Returns the created virtual account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Virtual 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds little beyond confirming that a virtual account is returned — useful since no output schema exists. It never explains what the payload must contain, whether the call hits an external provider with rate limits or async settlement, or what happens on duplicate requests despite idempotentHint=false.
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 prose is short and front-loaded, but the Args block duplicates the schema verbatim without adding information, so a third of the text earns no place. The first sentence and the return sentence are the valuable parts.
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 non-idempotent creation call with an opaque nested payload and no output schema, the description leaves the single most important question unanswered: what goes in body. It should also mention required customer state or external provider interaction; the return-value hint is the one complete piece.
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 nominally 100%, but the schema descriptions merely restate the property names ('Customer id', 'Virtual account payload'), and the description does exactly the same. The 'body' parameter is a nested object with additionalProperties {} and receives no field-level explanation anywhere, so the agent has no idea what keys to supply for a create operation.
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 ('Create a virtual account for a customer'), which is distinguishable from sibling resources such as wallets, custodial wallets, and off-ramp wallets. It does not explicitly name the related siblings (ashar_list_customer_virtual_accounts, ashar_create_customer_wallet) to sharpen the boundary, so a 4 rather than 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites are needed (e.g. the customer must exist and be verified), or which sibling to use for listing or deleting virtual accounts. The agent must infer the entire usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.