List account aliases and signed balances to review financial positions without exposing full account numbers. Provides a read-only snapshot for portfolio monitoring.
List account aliases and signed balances. No full account numbers. Live access is not implemented in this scaffold.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | ||
| accounts | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that full account numbers are not returned and that live access is not implemented in this scaffold, which meaningfully shapes agent expectations about data quality and scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by two relevant limitations. Every word contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what data to expect, what is excluded, and the scaffold limitation. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description correctly stays silent on inputs and focuses on output characteristics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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?
Description states a specific verb and resource: 'List account aliases and signed balances.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_transactions and list_categories by naming the account-specific data. The added caveat 'No full account numbers' further sharpens the boundary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: call this tool when you need account aliases or signed balances. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when not to use it or point to alternatives, relying on sibling names for differentiation. This is adequate but lacks explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.