Fetch account holder identity details such as names, emails, phones, and addresses reported by the financial institution. Use it to verify ownership or populate KYC data for a linked bank account.
Account holder names, emails, phones, addresses as reported by the institution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys only a static list of data fields and the phrase 'as reported by the institution'—this hints at provenance but says nothing about whether the operation is purely read-only, the impact of omitting account_id, failure conditions, or rate limits.
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 free of filler, but it is a noun phrase fragment rather than a structured sentence. It lacks an ordering that leads the agent through what the tool returns and any conditions, so the brevity is more under-specification than efficient concision.
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?
There are no annotations, no output schema, and one optional parameter, so the description carries nearly all context. It fails to explain the output structure, what happens when account_id is null, and how this tool fits with sibling tools like list_linked_institutions or list_accounts. An agent would be uncertain about return shapes and parameter behavior.
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 one parameter, account_id, with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain what account_id does—whether it filters to a single account, is required for any specific institution, or can be null to get all accounts. The tool description provides no compensation for the missing parameter meaning.
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 identifies the resource and specific data fields (names, emails, phones, addresses) without ambiguously matching sibling tools. It lacks an explicit verb, but the subject matter clearly indicates a retrieval operation for account-holder identity 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?
No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus siblings like list_accounts_tool or get_income_tool, nor any mention of prerequisites such as a linked institution or authorization. An agent cannot tell the intended conditions for using this tool from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.