ashar_list_customer_virtual_accountsRetrieve all virtual accounts linked to a specific customer ID to review account details and manage customer payment destinations.
List a customer's virtual accounts.
Args:
customer_id (string): the customer id
Returns an array of virtual_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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one useful beyond-schema fact — that the result is an array of virtual_accounts — but says nothing about behavior for an unknown customer_id, empty results, or pagination.
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?
Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a short arg note and return note; nothing is buried. The 'Args' line is largely redundant with a 100%-covered schema, which is the only real waste.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers intent and the top-level return container. It does not say what fields a virtual_account contains or how errors surface, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.
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 parameter, so the schema already documents customer_id. The description's 'customer_id (string): the customer id' is a near-restatement that adds no format, source, or lookup context; baseline 3 applies.
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 (List) and resource (virtual accounts) scoped to a customer, which separates it from ashar_list_customer_wallets and ashar_list_customer_bank_accounts by resource type. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the noun alone.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative list tools (wallets, bank accounts, custodial wallets) that an agent would choose between. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the 'customer_id' argument.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.