Summarize an ACH file's structure, control totals, SEC codes, returns, and NOCs from a file path or raw content to review batch activity and exceptions.
Summarize ACH structure, totals, SEC codes, returns, and NOCs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| 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 not state that this is a read-only operation, does not explain the significance of reveal_sensitive=false, and does not disclose how path versus content are resolved, leaving key behavioral traits undocumented.
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 efficient sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.
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 no explanation, but with no annotations, zero parameter documentation, and no usage guidance for a 3-parameter tool involving a sensitive-data toggle, the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.
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% and the description mentions none of the three parameters. It does not clarify that path and content are alternative inputs or what reveal_sensitive controls, so the agent gets no semantic help beyond bare property names.
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 (summarize) and resource (ACH file) and enumerates the summarized facets (structure, totals, SEC codes, returns, NOCs), which distinguishes it from parse_ach_file and validate_ach_file. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the closest siblings such as explain_control_totals.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative siblings. The agent must infer from the name alone whether to summarize, parse, or validate a file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.