xendit-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns available balance by account type, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a financial tool. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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 front-loaded and efficient, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core functionality and return structure. However, as a financial tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like authentication or error details, but it's adequate for basic use.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying the tool retrieves balance 'by account type,' which aligns with the accountType parameter, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('Xendit account balance'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on balance retrieval rather than invoice, disbursement, or transaction operations. It explicitly mentions the return structure, which helps differentiate its purpose.

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 for checking account balances by type, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_transactions or other get_* tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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