ashar_list_bank_accountsLists all PIX and TED bank accounts for the current tenant, returning account IDs, bank names, PIX keys, and statuses for payment setup.
List the tenant's PIX/TED bank accounts.
No arguments. Returns an array of bank_accounts (id, bank_name, pix_key, status).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context by stating there are no arguments and naming the returned array fields (`id`, `bank_name`, `pix_key`, `status`), though it omits pagination or ordering behavior.
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 two short sentences, front-loads the action and scope, and includes only useful output context. There is no wasted text.
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 zero-argument read tool with annotations covering safety, the description gives enough context to invoke it and interpret the basic return shape. It does not explain pagination or ordering, but the simple no-argument scope makes those minor omissions.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's 'No arguments' is consistent with the empty input schema and confirms the tool requires no input.
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 states a specific verb and resource: listing the tenant's PIX/TED bank accounts. The tenant scope helps distinguish it from customer bank-account siblings, though it does not explicitly name `ashar_list_customer_bank_accounts`.
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?
Usage is implied by 'List the tenant's PIX/TED bank accounts' and 'No arguments,' but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to customer bank-account tools. An agent can infer the purpose but must resolve alternatives itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.