Compare two ACH files to pinpoint field-level differences, returning masked results by default so you can review changes in records and control totals without exposing sensitive data.
Compare two ACH contents and return masked field-level differences.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| left_content | No | ||
| right_content | No | ||
| reveal_sensitive | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait beyond the schema: output is masked at the field level, and one schema parameter (reveal_sensitive) implies masking is the default. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, what happens when left_content or right_content is null (both default to null with no required params), or the effect of reveal_sensitive.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the operands, and the output semantics with zero filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description correctly focuses on behavior. But for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the omission of null-handling and reveal_sensitive semantics leaves an agent guessing on the edge cases.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies the two 'contents' map to left_content/right_content and that masking relates to reveal_sensitive, but it never explains the nullable defaults, what happens if only one side is supplied, or what reveal_sensitive actually unmasks.
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?
States a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('two ACH contents') plus the shape of the output ('masked field-level differences'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like parse_ach_file, summarize_ach_file, and validate_ach_file. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling it complements or differs from.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus parse_ach_file, summarize_ach_file, or validate_ach_file, and no preconditions stated. The reader must infer that this tool is for comparing two files rather than inspecting one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.