ashar_list_customer_bank_accountsRetrieve all bank accounts linked to a specific customer by providing the customer ID, returning an array of bank account records.
List a customer's bank accounts.
Args:
customer_id (string): the customer id
Returns an array of bank_accounts.
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it returns an array of bank_accounts, which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, pagination, or empty results. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 fits.
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 short and front-loads the core purpose before the args and return lines. The 'Args:' block slightly duplicates the schema, but overall there is little wasted text and structure is easy to scan.
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 one-parameter read-only list tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers what it lists and what shape the result takes. The only minor gaps are pagination and ordering behavior, which are not critical for this simple 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single customer_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's 'Args:' block merely restates the parameter name and type with no added semantics such as format, source, or validation rules, so it earns the baseline rather than more.
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 scoped to a customer ('List a customer's bank accounts'), which distinguishes it from the broad sibling ashar_list_bank_accounts. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it is contrasted with, so it stops short of 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 versus ashar_list_bank_accounts or ashar_list_customer_virtual_accounts, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The customer scoping is only implied by the noun phrase in the first sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.