xendit-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination' (via the 'limit' parameter) but doesn't describe return format, ordering, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a listing tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists key optional features. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or waste.

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 5 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination details, authentication, error handling) that would be helpful for an AI agent. For a listing tool with multiple filters, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value by naming three filter categories ('status, date range, and pagination') but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 ('invoices from your Xendit account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_invoice' (singular retrieval) and 'create_invoice' (creation). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_transactions', which might be a similar listing operation for a different 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 implies usage context by mentioning 'optional filters for status, date range, and pagination', suggesting this is for filtered listing. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_transactions' or 'get_invoice', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or exclusions.

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