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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities and investigation use cases, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), or what the output format looks like. For a list tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, 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.

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

The description is appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third highlights a key parameter. There's no wasted text, and each sentence adds distinct value. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines, but it's efficient overall.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter emphasis adequately, but lacks behavioral details like safety profile, output format, or error handling. For a list tool with rich filtering options, more context on result behavior (e.g., pagination, default sorting) would improve completeness, but it meets minimum viable standards.

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 75%, providing good documentation for most parameters. The description adds value by emphasizing 'reference_id' as a key filter for finding specific transactions and linking it to 'CareNow loan ID' as an example, which clarifies semantics beyond the schema's generic description. However, it doesn't address parameters like 'currency' or provide additional context for 'createdGte'/'createdLte' beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the 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 tool's purpose with the verb 'List' and resource 'transactions', specifying the types included (payments, disbursements, fees, refunds, adjustments). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'xendit_get_transaction' by indicating it's for listing multiple transactions rather than retrieving a single one. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'xendit_list_invoices' or 'xendit_list_refunds' beyond the transaction scope.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Core tool for payment discrepancy and wrong VA investigations' and 'Filter by reference_id to find a specific transaction.' This gives practical scenarios and a specific use case. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context strongly implies it's for broad transaction listing versus more specific retrieval tools.

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