Nomba MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create a checkout page' implies a write operation that likely generates a payment interface, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the expected output might be (e.g., a URL or confirmation).

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 extremely concise ('Create a checkout page') with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity, as it omits necessary context that would help an agent use it effectively.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with 3 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a checkout URL, status), error conditions, or integration details, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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%, with clear parameter documentation (order_id, amount in kobo, customer_email). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without enhancement.

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 'Create a checkout page' clearly states the action (create) and resource (checkout page), but it's vague about what a 'checkout page' entails in this context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_transfer' or 'create_virtual_account' by focusing on checkout functionality, but lacks specificity about the platform or service involved.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create_transfer' and 'create_virtual_account' that might handle different payment-related tasks, there's no indication of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions for this checkout tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.