Vaultix MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources and actions with no overlap. For example, create_charge, get_charge, and list_charges are clearly differentiated by operation type, and tools like get_balance vs list_balance_transactions serve different functions. The descriptions reinforce this clarity, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a perfectly consistent verb_noun pattern with the 'vaultix_' prefix (e.g., vaultix_create_charge, vaultix_get_customer, vaultix_list_products). The verbs (create, get, list, update, delete, cancel, deactivate) are used predictably across resources, and snake_case is applied uniformly throughout the set.
Tool Count3/5
With 32 tools, the count is borderline high for a payment processing server, potentially feeling heavy but not extreme. It covers multiple resources (charges, customers, products, etc.) with full CRUD operations, which justifies some bulk, but it approaches the upper limit of what might be considered well-scoped without being overwhelming.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for the payment processing domain, including charges, customers, products, payouts, refunds, and payment links. It supports all essential operations (create, retrieve, update, delete, list) and includes specialized actions like canceling and deactivating, with no obvious gaps that would hinder agent workflows.
Average 2.9/5 across 32 of 32 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update a product' implies a mutation operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether updates are idempotent, error handling, or side effects (e.g., impact on existing orders). This leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Update a product'), which is efficient but under-specified. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to provide essential context that would help an agent use the tool effectively. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity, making this score mediocre.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success or failure, what fields are optional versus required beyond the schema, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a tool that modifies data, this lack of context is a significant shortfall.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters (id, name, price, stock_quantity) with their types and purposes. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as constraints or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a product' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'vaultix_update_product' without adding specificity. It mentions the verb 'update' and resource 'product' but fails to distinguish what aspects of a product can be updated or how this differs from sibling tools like 'vaultix_create_product' or 'vaultix_delete_product'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing product ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot update certain fields), or context (e.g., use after creating a product). With multiple sibling tools for product management, this lack of differentiation is problematic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Create a new customer' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like required permissions, whether duplicate customers are allowed, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use this tool effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 3 words, which is appropriate for a simple operation. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it lacks necessary context for proper tool usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what data is returned, error conditions, or how this tool relates to other customer management tools in the system. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects of this write operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters (name, email, document, phone) with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not additive parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new customer' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('customer'), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a customer in this system and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'vaultix_update_customer' or 'vaultix_get_customer' beyond the basic action verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vaultix_update_customer' for modifying existing customers or 'vaultix_get_customer' for retrieving customer data. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or output format. It lacks details on what 'summary' entails, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be more front-loaded with key details (e.g., 'Get aggregated transaction data'), but its brevity is appropriate for the simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns aggregated financial data. It doesn't explain what the summary includes (e.g., counts, amounts, currency) or handle complexity like authentication, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively without guesswork.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'period' fully documented in the schema (enum values and default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying temporal filtering, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get transaction summary for a period' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction summary'), but it's vague about what constitutes a 'summary' (e.g., totals, counts, trends) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'vaultix_get_transaction' (singular) or 'vaultix_list_transactions' (detailed list). It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'vaultix_list_transactions' for detailed records or 'vaultix_get_balance' for financial overview. The description implies usage for aggregated data over a period but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or sibling comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'list' but not explicit), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded with the core action. There's zero wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with filtering parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters (limit and email). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, not even hinting at filtering capabilities. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all customers' states the basic action (list) and resource (customers), but it's vague about scope and functionality. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like 'vaultix_list_charges' or 'vaultix_list_products' beyond the resource name, nor does it clarify if 'all' means truly all customers or has implicit limitations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to use 'vaultix_list_customers' instead of 'vaultix_get_customer' (for a single customer) or how it relates to other list tools. The description offers no context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. 'List all orders' suggests a retrieval operation but lacks transparency about implementation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at just three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return format, pagination, ordering, or how filters interact. While schema covers parameters, the overall context for using this tool effectively is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all orders' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('orders'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'vaultix_get_order' (singular) or 'vaultix_list_charges' (different resource). It lacks specificity about what 'all' means in context of available filters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vaultix_get_order' for a single order or other list tools for different resources. The description implies it's for listing orders, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, return format, or whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit). This is inadequate for a list operation with potential complexity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded with the core action. There's zero waste, making it easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation with potential behavioral nuances (e.g., ordering, pagination), the description is incomplete. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively beyond the basic schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'limit' and 'charge' parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, not even hinting at parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all refunds' clearly states the action (list) and resource (refunds), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'vaultix_get_refund' (singular) or 'vaultix_list_charges' (similar list pattern). It lacks specificity about what 'all' means (e.g., time range, status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vaultix_get_refund' for a specific refund or 'vaultix_list_charges' for related data. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to cancel a charge but doesn't describe what 'cancel' entails (e.g., whether it's reversible, if it triggers notifications, or if there are side effects like updating related records). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action ('Cancel a pending or authorized charge'). It efficiently conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, error conditions), expected outcomes, or how it fits into broader workflows with siblings. For a charge cancellation tool, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Charge ID to cancel'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cancel') and resource ('a pending or authorized charge'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vaultix_create_charge' or 'vaultix_get_charge' by specifying cancellation rather than creation or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'vaultix_cancel_payout', which targets a different resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., charge must be in a cancellable state), exclusions (e.g., cannot cancel completed charges), or comparisons to siblings like 'vaultix_create_refund' for handling non-pending charges. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 amount format (cents) but fails to describe critical behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, idempotency, response format, error handling, or side effects (e.g., whether the charge is immediately processed). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key details (payment methods, amount format). There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly addresses the most critical information for initial understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, idempotency), response structure, error cases, and usage context relative to siblings. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by clarifying the amount unit (cents) and providing a currency example, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions, validation rules, or business logic beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new payment charge'), specifying the payment methods (PIX, Credit Card, or Boleto) and currency context (Brazilian Real). It distinguishes from siblings like 'vaultix_create_customer' or 'vaultix_create_refund' by focusing on charges, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'vaultix_create_payment_link'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'vaultix_create_payment_link' for payment links or 'vaultix_create_refund' for refunds. The description lacks context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, offering only basic functional information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 amount is in cents but lacks critical details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the link is reusable or single-use, or what happens upon creation (e.g., returns a URL). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part ('Create a shareable payment link. Amount in cents.') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and a key parameter detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a payment creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what is returned (e.g., a URL or ID), error conditions, or side effects, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the concise structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., amount in cents with minimum, allowed payment methods). The description adds minimal value by reiterating 'Amount in cents' but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema specifies, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a shareable payment link') and specifies the resource ('payment link'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'vaultix_create_charge' or 'vaultix_get_payment_link', which would require mentioning that this is for generating a reusable link rather than a direct charge or retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't compare to 'vaultix_create_charge' for immediate payments or 'vaultix_get_payment_link' for viewing existing links, leaving the agent without context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states 'Create a payout (withdrawal)' implying a mutation, but doesn't cover permissions required, rate limits, idempotency, side effects (e.g., reduces balance), or response format. This is inadequate for a financial transaction tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating PIX and bank transfer options, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex financial mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as authentication requirements, error conditions, return values, and operational constraints (e.g., minimum amount beyond schema).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value by reiterating 'Amount in cents' (already in schema) and hinting at PIX/bank transfer methods (implied by parameters like 'pix_key' and 'bank_code'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a payout') and specifies the methods ('via PIX or bank transfer') with the amount unit ('Amount in cents'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'vaultix_get_payout' (read) and 'vaultix_cancel_payout' (cancel), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'vaultix_create_charge'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a balance or customer), exclusions (e.g., cannot create if insufficient funds), or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'vaultix_create_charge' for incoming payments).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool creates a product, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success. The price unit clarification is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences, both of which are relevant and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial unit clarification. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could benefit from slightly more context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns a product ID), error handling, or system behavior. The price unit clarification is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context needed for safe tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by clarifying that 'price is in cents', which provides important semantic context beyond the schema's 'Price in cents' description. This earns a baseline score of 3 with some added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new product') and the resource ('in the catalog'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'vaultix_update_product', which would require mentioning that this is for initial creation rather than modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vaultix_update_product' or 'vaultix_get_product'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent with insufficient context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action and partial refund capability. It lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a destructive/mutative operation (implied but not explicit), permission requirements, rate limits, idempotency, refund processing time, or what happens on success/failure. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two clear sentences that front-load the main purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (destructiveness, auth needs), error conditions, return values, or usage context relative to siblings. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for safe/effective use is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value by clarifying 'amount in cents for partial refund', which slightly elaborates on the schema's 'optional, for partial refund'. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., if amount is omitted, is it a full refund?) or provide examples beyond what the schema offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a refund') and target resource ('for a paid charge'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'vaultix_cancel_charge' or 'vaultix_get_refund'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'vaultix_list_refunds' or other refund-related tools beyond the basic verb distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vaultix_cancel_charge' or 'vaultix_get_refund'. The description mentions partial refunds but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., charge must be paid) or exclusions (e.g., cannot refund canceled charges).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('deactivate') but does not explain what deactivation entails (e.g., whether it's reversible, requires specific permissions, affects linked transactions, or has side effects). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Deactivate a payment link') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral context in the description, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on effects, return values, or error conditions, failing to provide a complete understanding for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deactivate a payment link' clearly states the verb ('deactivate') and resource ('payment link'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'vaultix_cancel_charge' or 'vaultix_cancel_payout', which also involve deactivation-like actions, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to deactivate vs. cancel or delete related resources. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't elaborate on critical aspects like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related data (e.g., charges), or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, side effects), usage context, or expected outcomes. For a tool that permanently removes data, this minimal description poses risks for an AI agent's decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'Customer ID to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond this. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param details in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a customer'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vaultix_update_customer' or 'vaultix_get_customer' by specifying the destructive operation. However, it doesn't specify what 'customer' means in this context (e.g., a payment customer record), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., customer must exist), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or when to choose deletion over deactivation (if applicable). The presence of sibling tools like 'vaultix_update_customer' suggests alternatives, but the description offers no comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieve' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what data is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted text. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key identifier. This is an excellent example of efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'charge' is, what data will be returned, or any behavioral constraints. For a retrieval tool in what appears to be a payment processing system, more context would be helpful for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Charge ID (ch_...)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter details in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('a charge by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'vaultix_list_charges' by specifying retrieval of a single charge rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what a 'charge' represents in this context (e.g., payment transaction), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid charge ID), compare it to 'vaultix_list_charges' for bulk retrieval, or indicate scenarios where retrieving a single charge is appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. This is inadequate for a read operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, error conditions, or how it fits within the broader API context, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format hints or examples), meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a customer by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'vaultix_list_customers' or 'vaultix_get_charge', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vaultix_list_customers' for multiple customers or 'vaultix_get_transaction' for different resources. It lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Retrieve' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what data is returned. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'order' entails in this context, what fields are returned, or any prerequisites. For a retrieval tool in a payment system, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('id' and 'expand'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval by ID, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('an order by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'vaultix_get_charge' or 'vaultix_get_customer' which follow the same pattern, but the specificity is adequate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention 'vaultix_list_orders' for listing multiple orders or clarify if this is for detailed retrieval versus summary. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieve' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what data is returned (e.g., link status, amount). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lacks critical operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Retrieve a payment link by ID') earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key input. There is no redundancy or structural waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a retrieval tool. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., link details, status), error cases, or system behavior. While the schema covers the single parameter, the overall context for an agent to use the tool effectively is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'Payment Link ID (plink_...)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('payment link by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vaultix_list_payment_links' by specifying retrieval of a single item via ID rather than listing multiple items. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get_' tools (e.g., 'vaultix_get_charge'), which slightly limits differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a payment link ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or listing links), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'vaultix_list_payment_links' for bulk retrieval. This leaves usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits, which are critical for a retrieval tool in a financial context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of financial operations and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or prerequisites, leaving gaps for safe and effective tool invocation in a sibling-rich environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'by ID' which aligns with the single parameter 'id' in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the schema fully documents the parameter), the description adds minimal value beyond restating the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('retrieve') and resource ('payout by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like vaultix_get_charge or vaultix_get_transaction beyond specifying the resource type, missing an opportunity to clarify uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like vaultix_list_payouts for multiple payouts or vaultix_get_transaction for broader transaction data, the description lacks context on selection criteria, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Retrieve' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a payment system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a payment-related tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error cases, authentication needs, or how it fits into the broader vaultix system, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented as 'Product ID (prod_...)'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('a product by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vaultix_list_products' (which lists multiple products) by specifying retrieval of a single product via ID, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied to retrieve a specific product when you have its ID, there's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or comparisons to siblings like 'vaultix_list_products' for broader queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is needed, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, rate limits, or what format the return data will have. 'Retrieve' implies reading, but no behavioral details are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and front-loads the essential information immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned, potential error cases, or how this fits into the broader refund workflow (e.g., relationship to create_refund or list_refunds). The context signals show this is a simple tool, but more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'id' parameter is fully described in the schema as 'Refund ID (re_...)'), so the description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a refund by ID'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this from creation/listing operations but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools like get_charge or get_customer, which have similar retrieval patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied this is for retrieving specific refunds (vs. list_refunds for listing), there's no explicit mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison to sibling tools like get_transaction that might retrieve similar financial data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what data is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise at just four words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every element ('Retrieve', 'transaction', 'by ID') serves a clear purpose in communicating the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'transaction' represents in this context, what fields are returned, or how this differs from similar retrieval tools. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'Transaction ID'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('a transaction by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'vaultix_get_charge' or 'vaultix_get_payout' which follow the same pattern, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'vaultix_get_transactions_summary' and 'vaultix_list_transactions' available, there's no indication of when a single transaction lookup is preferred over summary or list operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only list operation but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'balance transactions' entail (e.g., financial statements). The parenthetical '(statement)' hints at output format but is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single phrase with a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation with potential complexity (e.g., pagination, filtering), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for both parameters ('limit' and 'type'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or enhancing parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('balance transactions') with the parenthetical '(statement)' providing additional context about the nature of these transactions. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vaultix_get_balance' (single balance) and 'vaultix_list_transactions' (general transactions), though the distinction from 'vaultix_get_transaction' (singular) is less explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vaultix_list_transactions' or 'vaultix_get_transaction'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'list all charges' but doesn't describe pagination behavior (e.g., default limit, how results are ordered), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when filters return no results. The mention of 'optional filters' is minimal and doesn't explain how filtering works in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all charges') and adds only essential context ('with optional filters'). Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a list operation. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., array of charge objects), pagination, error handling, or how filters combine. For a tool with 3 parameters and rich sibling context, more behavioral details are needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (limit, status, payment_method) with their types, constraints, and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering exists, which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'charges' with scope 'all', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling list tools like vaultix_list_customers or vaultix_list_products, which have similar 'list all X' patterns but different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify when to use vaultix_list_charges versus vaultix_get_charge (for a single charge) or vaultix_list_transactions (which might overlap in scope). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'List all payment links' implies a read-only operation that returns multiple items, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, how results are paginated (beyond the 'limit' parameter in schema), what format the output takes, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with filtering parameters), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, pagination beyond the 'limit' parameter, output format, or error handling. For a tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about what the agent can expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('limit' and 'status'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all payment links' clearly states the action (list) and resource (payment links), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'vaultix_get_payment_link' (singular retrieval) or 'vaultix_deactivate_payment_link' (mutation), but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'vaultix_get_payment_link' (for retrieving a specific payment link) or 'vaultix_list_transactions' (for a different resource type), nor does it indicate any prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all payouts' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List all payouts'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'payout' entails in this context, how results are returned (e.g., list format, pagination), or any prerequisites. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (limit and status with enum values). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('payouts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'vaultix_get_payout' (singular retrieval) by indicating it returns multiple payouts. However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., 'all' implies no filtering, but parameters allow filtering), which slightly reduces specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'vaultix_get_payout' for retrieving a single payout or 'vaultix_list_transactions' for broader listings, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all products' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), rate limits, or what 'all' means in context (e.g., all accessible products). For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted text. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a list tool with three parameters. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral aspects like pagination. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (limit, status, search) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage, resulting in the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all products' clearly states the action (list) and resource (products), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'vaultix_get_product' (singular vs. plural) or explain how it differs from other list tools like 'vaultix_list_customers' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vaultix_get_product' (for single product retrieval) or other list tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states this is a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention pagination, sorting, default ordering, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., array of objects with fields), pagination behavior, or how the unified view differs from individual list tools. Given the context of multiple sibling list tools, more guidance would help an agent use this correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions and enums. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'type' and 'source' differ or providing usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all transactions'), with a helpful clarification about what 'transactions' means ('unified view of charges, refunds, payouts'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'vaultix_list_charges' or 'vaultix_get_transactions_summary', but the unified view aspect provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vaultix_list_charges', 'vaultix_list_refunds', or 'vaultix_get_transactions_summary'. The description mentions a 'unified view', but doesn't explain when this is preferable over the more specific list tools or what the summary tool offers differently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, whether changes are reversible, or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what values are returned, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of customer updates and the lack of structured documentation, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a customer'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'vaultix_update_product' or explain what aspects of a customer can be updated beyond what's implied by the parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vaultix_get_customer' for reading or 'vaultix_delete_customer' for removal. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing customer ID) or contextual constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Cancel' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether cancellation is reversible, what happens to associated funds, required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. For a financial operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a financial cancellation operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context: what 'pending' means, cancellation effects, success/error responses, or dependencies. For a mutation tool in this domain, more detail is needed to ensure safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Payout ID to cancel'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, but with only one parameter and high coverage, the baseline is strong. No additional param info is needed, though context like ID format could help.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Cancel a pending payout' clearly states the action (cancel) and target resource (pending payout). It distinguishes from siblings like 'vaultix_create_payout' and 'vaultix_get_payout' by specifying the cancellation operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'vaultix_cancel_charge' beyond the resource name, which is slightly less specific than ideal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., payout must be pending), exclusions (e.g., cannot cancel completed payouts), or mention sibling tools like 'vaultix_get_payout' for checking status first. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting related charges), or returns confirmation. For a destructive operation, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Delete a product') with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It front-loads the core action effectively. For a simple tool with one parameter, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens upon deletion, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that permanently removes data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond the schema, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is strong. It implicitly confirms the parameter's purpose through the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a product'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'vaultix_get_product' or 'vaultix_update_product' by focusing on deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what type of product or system context, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., product must exist), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or when to choose deletion over deactivation (though no deactivation tool exists in siblings). This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time data, or involves any side effects. For a financial tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get current account balance') and adds necessary detail ('available and pending'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place in conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what balance is retrieved but lacks context on authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. For a balance-checking tool in a financial system, more behavioral context would be beneficial despite the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds value by specifying the balance components ('available and pending'), which provides semantic context beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets this by clarifying what balance information is retrieved.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('current account balance') with specific components ('available and pending'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on balance retrieval rather than operations on charges, customers, products, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'vaultix_list_balance_transactions' which might provide similar balance information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vaultix_list_balance_transactions' or 'vaultix_get_transactions_summary'. The description implies usage for checking balance status but lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcpVaultix MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/VautlixDevelopment/mcpVaultix/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/VautlixDevelopment/mcpVaultix)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcpVaultix MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/VautlixDevelopment/mcpVaultix/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/VautlixDevelopment/mcpVaultix)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/VautlixDevelopment/mcpVaultix'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server