Retrieve a customer's details and verification status by customer ID, with optional KYC/KYB profiles or document images for syncing verification data.
Get details about a specific customer including their verification status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Also return the normalized KYC/KYB data ('verification-profile') or submitted document images ('doc-images'). Slower; only to sync verification data | |
| customerId | Yes | The customer ID to look up |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Input schema / properties / includeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Also return the normalized KYC/KYB data ('verification-profile') or submitted document images ('doc-images'). Slower; only to sync verification data",
+ "items": {
+ "enum": [
+ "verification-profile",
+ "doc-images",
+ "all"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it doesn't state that the call is read-only, that the 'include' option is slower or intended only for syncing verification data, or what the response looks like. It only hints that verification status is part of the payload.
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 with no padding or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity overlaps with its lack of substance rather than reflecting well-chosen density.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what 'details' actually contains and flag the include-parameter tradeoff. Neither is present, leaving the agent under-informed about both the return payload and the costly optional path.
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 100%, and the schema already documents both customerId ('customer ID to look up') and the include enum with its slowness caveat. The description's mention of 'verification status' faintly maps to the include parameter but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, 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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific customer'), which distinguishes it from list_customers, create_customer, and update_customer by the singular, read-oriented framing. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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 no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With list_customers available for browsing and update_customer for mutation, an agent gets no help deciding between them beyond the word 'specific'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.