ashar_get_customerRetrieve customer details by providing a customer ID. Use this to fetch specific customer account information from the Ashar Exchange system.
Get a customer by id.
Args:
customer_id (string): the customer id
Returns the customer details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only "Returns the customer details" — it says nothing about behavior when the id is unknown (error vs. empty), authentication/tenant scoping, or the shape of the returned object.
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 front-loaded and the whole description is three short lines. The Args section is largely redundant with the schema, which is minor waste but not bloat.
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 simple single-parameter read with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. Still, an agent gets no information about error behavior or what fields the customer details contain, so it is adequate rather than complete.
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?
With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents customer_id fully. The Args block merely restates the schema field, adding no format, source, or example detail beyond it.
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 ("Get a customer by id"), which distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like ashar_list_customers and from sub-resource getters like ashar_get_customer_custodial_wallet. It never explicitly names those alternatives, but the resource boundary is unambiguous.
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, and no mention of the sibling tools (list_customers, update_customer, get_customer_custodial_wallet) that an agent must choose between. The only implicit signal is that a customer id is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.