Cresium MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return data (address ID, bank name, owner name, account type) and a use case ('needed as toId for creating transfers'), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it does not cover potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, input, and output without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes only essential information, making it highly concise and effective.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (lookup operation with one parameter) and no output schema, the description partially compensates by specifying return fields and a use case. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral details (e.g., error handling), it is adequate but has clear gaps, making it minimally viable for agent use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting the 'value' parameter as 'CBU, CVU, or alias to look up'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Look up a bank address') and the resources involved ('by CBU, CVU, or alias'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_balance' or 'search_transactions' which handle different financial data. It explicitly identifies the lookup identifiers, making the purpose 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?

The description implies usage when needing bank address details for identifiers like CBU, CVU, or alias, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_transactions' for transaction-related lookups) or any prerequisites. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.