xendit-mcp

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 it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what details are returned. The API context note adds some value but lacks operational specifics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second adds API context. It's front-loaded with the core function, though the second sentence could be more directly actionable. No wasted words, but slight room for improvement in structure.

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?

Given 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the tool's purpose and API context but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral traits. For a simple read tool, it's passable but could be more informative to compensate for missing annotations.

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 100%, with the parameter 'paymentRequestId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the ID format ('pr-...') and context, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('payment request details'), specifying it retrieves details by Xendit payment_request ID. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on payment requests rather than balances, disbursements, invoices, etc., though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'xendit_list_payment_requests'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by mentioning the new Payments API replacing legacy flows, suggesting this tool is for the updated system. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'xendit_list_payment_requests' or other get tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.