Fetch bank accounts with sort code and account number when available. Use fresh=true to skip local cache and read directly from the bank.
List bank accounts, with sort code and account number where available.
Set fresh=true to bypass the local cache and query the bank directly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fresh | No | ||
| provider_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose caching behavior and that some fields may be absent ('where available'), which is useful context. It says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the cache is stale by default.
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?
Two front-loaded sentences with no wasted words: the resource and returns come first, the flag behaviour second.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description only partially covers the return shape (sort code, account number) and omits provider_id semantics entirely. Adequate but with clear gaps for a two-parameter listing tool.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains fresh=true, but provider_id is left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving half the parameters opaque.
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 and resource ('List bank accounts') and even names the fields returned (sort code, account number). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_banks and list_cards by the resource noun, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those near-neighbours.
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 gives a clear condition for the fresh flag ('bypass the local cache and query the bank directly'), but offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_balances, get_balance, or list_banks. Usage is implied by the resource, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.