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. 'Get transaction details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify if authentication is needed, rate limits apply, or what format/details are returned. It lacks crucial context for safe and effective use.

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 with just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, it borders on under-specification, as it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose, earning a 4 for brevity but not perfect clarity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, error handling, or behavioral traits, leaving gaps for the agent to navigate. For a tool with minimal structured data, more descriptive context is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'transaction_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Get transaction details' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction details'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_transactions' or specify what details are retrieved, making it somewhat vague rather than specific.

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 like 'list_transactions' or 'get_balance'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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