naija-faker-mcp

Generate a bank account

generate_bank_account

Read-only

Generate a synthetic bank account for test data. Specify a bank name to instantly create realistic fictional account details, helping developers populate mock environments and validate systems without using real financial information.

Instructions

Generates a synthetic bank account for test data.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "generate_bank_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bankName`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`value`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.0.0Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description usefully adds that the bank account is synthetic and intended for test data, but it does not add deeper behavioral context such as randomness, determinism, or output characteristics.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the resource. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with no required parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the core invocation is adequately covered. However, the optional 'bankName' parameter is undocumented and the description provides no sibling-selection guidance, leaving minor but real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the 'bankName' parameter, but it never mentions it. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, yet optionality, expected format, and behavior when omitted are left to inference.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific verb ('Generates'), a concrete resource ('a synthetic bank account'), and the intended context ('for test data'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling generators such as generate_person, generate_vehicle_record, and generate_company.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'for test data' implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative to choose. With 27 sibling generators, the agent must largely infer selection from the tool name.

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