Create a new Holded treasury account with a required name and optional IBAN, BIC, and initial balance for managing bank funds.
Create a new treasury account (Holded API v2). Overlaps with list_bank_accounts/get_bank_account/create_bank_account (official treasury tools); consolidation planned for 2.1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bic | No | BIC/SWIFT code | |
| iban | No | IBAN number | |
| name | Yes | Treasury account name | |
| balance | No | Initial balance |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says 'create' (a mutation) but omits required permissions, duplicate-name behavior, whether an initial balance impacts anything downstream, and what the call returns — the only extra context is the API version tag.
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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the second sentence is internal roadmap/consolidation commentary that doesn't help the agent call the tool correctly, weakening the 'every sentence earns its place' test.
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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover side effects, return shape, and failure modes. It covers none of these, leaving the agent without what it needs to invoke confidently.
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% and all four fields (bic, iban, name, balance) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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+resource: 'Create a new treasury account', plus API provenance (Holded API v2). It names the overlapping siblings (list_bank_accounts/get_bank_account/create_bank_account), so an agent can see potential alternatives, though it doesn't resolve which to prefer.
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 overlap note flags that alternatives exist but gives no condition for choosing this tool over create_bank_account, nor any prerequisites. 'Consolidation planned for 2.1' is internal roadmap trivia, not when-to-use guidance, and arguably leaves the agent more uncertain about which tool to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.