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 states the tool checks status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns detailed status info (e.g., pending, completed), or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, with zero wasted content.

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 for a status-checking tool. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., status details, timestamps), potential error cases, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a tool with 1 parameter and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective 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%, with the parameter 'disbursementId' fully documented in the schema as 'Xendit disbursement ID.' The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or context about ID sourcing. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 as 'Check the status of a disbursement by ID,' which specifies the action (check status), resource (disbursement), and key identifier (ID). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_disbursement' (creation) and 'list_disbursement_banks' (listing banks), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other status-checking tools like 'get_invoice' beyond the resource type.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a disbursement ID from a previous operation), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_invoice' or 'list_transactions' for related status checks. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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