plaid_auth_getFetches ACH, wire, BACS, and EFT account numbers for depository accounts on a Plaid sandbox Item to support bank transfers.
Calls /auth/get. Returns ACH (and wire/BACS/EFT where present) numbers for depository accounts on the Item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | item_id from plaid_sandbox_item_create (or a raw access_token you already hold) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it clearly says the tool calls /auth/get and returns numbers, indicating a read operation with no obvious side effects. It also discloses the 'where present' caveat and the depository-account scope, which are useful behavioral details.
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?
Two short sentences front-load the endpoint and the return value, with no redundant or filler wording. Every phrase earns its place.
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 tool with no output schema, the description plus the schema's item_id guidance is nearly complete. It could additionally note response structure or prerequisite Item state, but these are minor gaps.
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 coverage is 100% and the item_id schema description already explains where to get the value. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?
The description names the exact endpoint, /auth/get, and specifies the concrete deliverable: ACH (and wire/BACS/EFT where present) numbers for depository accounts. This is sufficiently distinct from siblings like plaid_accounts_get and plaid_balance_get, which target different data.
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 establishes what data the tool returns, so an agent can infer when it is relevant, but it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives or provides exclusions. Usage guidance is implied by the return type rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.