Retrieve bank details from the RBI master list by entering a bank name or IFSC code prefix.
Look up bank details from RBI master list. # PermissionTier: READ_ONLY
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name_or_code | Yes | Bank name or IFSC code prefix |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / name_or_code / titleAdded value: +"Name Or Code"Input schema / titleAdded value: +"lookup_bankArguments"Output schema / titleAdded value: +"lookup_bankDictOutput"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and bounded-result behaviors, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the data source 'RBI master list' and echoes 'READ_ONLY' via PermissionTier, giving minor useful context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 one clear sentence plus a permission tag. Every part contributes either to what the tool does or which access tier it belongs to, with no filler or redundancy.
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 simple one-parameter lookup tool, the description plus annotations and schema cover the necessary context: the operation, the data source, safety traits, and the accepted input. The output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary.
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 the parameter description already defines 'Bank name or IFSC code prefix'. The tool description does not need to add parameter-level detail; it only confirms the lookup scope. This meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.
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 'look up' and the resource 'bank details from RBI master list', so an agent knows exactly what entity the tool queries. It does not explicitly call out the closely related sibling lookup_ifsc, but the RBI master-list wording differentiates it from generic IFSC validation enough.
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 context: bank details come from the RBI master list, implying this is the authoritative source for bank identification. It does not explicitly state exclusions or mention lookup_ifsc as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.