GetV1InstancesCustomersBankAccountsRetrieve bank accounts for a customer in a specific instance, with optional filters by account type, status, country, or bank account ID.
Retrieve Bank Accounts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| customer_id | Yes | Customer ID | |
| instance_id | Yes | ||
| bank_account_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about filtering behavior, pagination, or result scope for a read-only list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three words is not conciseness but under-specification; nothing is wasted, but nothing meaningful is conveyed either. The brevity leaves no front-loaded information for an agent to act on.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A 7-parameter, 2-enum filtering endpoint with no output schema and no annotations covering return shape needs far more than a two-word phrase. An agent cannot tell what filters are supported or what the response contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 14% across 7 parameters, and the description provides no parameter information at all. The filtering semantics of name, type, status, country, and bank_account_id — plus the two enum vocabularies — are left entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Retrieve Bank Accounts" names a verb and resource, but gives no hint of scope (list vs. single record) or how it differs from siblings like GetV1InstancesCustomersBankAccountsById or GetV1InstancesCustomersBankAccountsOfframpWallets. An agent must infer from the required instance_id/customer_id pair that this lists bank accounts for a customer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the by-ID getter, the Plaid-linked creation endpoint, or the off-ramp wallet variants. The plural resource name is the only implicit usage cue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.