xendit-mcp

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. While 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what details are returned (e.g., transaction status, amount, timestamp). For a tool with no 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what details are returned (transaction status, amount, etc.), authentication needs, error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a financial transaction tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves too much unspecified.

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 description mentions 'by Xendit transaction ID' which aligns with the single parameter 'transactionId' in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage (the schema already documents the parameter as 'Xendit transaction ID (txn_...)'), the description adds minimal value beyond what's in the structured data. 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.

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get details') and resource ('specific transaction by Xendit transaction ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'xendit_list_transactions' or 'xendit_get_invoice', which would be needed for 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.

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 when to use 'xendit_get_transaction' versus 'xendit_list_transactions' (for multiple transactions) or other sibling tools like 'xendit_get_invoice' (for invoice-specific details). No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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