Nomba MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Create a virtual account' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether this operation is reversible, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or what the virtual account enables. This is particularly problematic for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 maximally concise at just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, according to the scoring guidelines, conciseness is evaluated separately from completeness. The description contains zero wasted words and is perfectly front-loaded with the core action.

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 that this is a creation/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a virtual account is, what it enables, what happens after creation, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would have insufficient information to understand the tool's role in the broader system context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('account_name' and 'permanent') having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 virtual account' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful clarification. While it identifies the verb ('create') and resource ('virtual account'), it doesn't specify what a virtual account is or how it differs from other account types, nor does it distinguish this tool from siblings like 'create_checkout' or 'create_transfer' beyond the obvious resource difference.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_transfer' or 'get_virtual_account'. An agent would have no contextual information about when this operation is appropriate versus other creation or retrieval operations in the system.

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