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 indicates this is a read operation (listing) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. It adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and scope, but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints that would be helpful given the tool's role in a financial system.

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 both parameters well-documented in the schema (channelCategory and currency with enums). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how filters combine or default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('banks and e-wallets available for disbursements'), and specifies the scope ('in a specific country'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_invoices' or 'list_transactions' by focusing on disbursement channels rather than financial records.

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 when needing to know available disbursement channels for a country, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_disbursement' or 'get_disbursement'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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