Nomba MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List transactions' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is safe, requires authentication, involves pagination, or returns a specific format. The description lacks any behavioral traits beyond the basic verb, making it inadequate for a tool with parameters.

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 overly concise to the point of under-specification. 'List transactions' is a single phrase that fails to convey necessary details, making it inefficient rather than appropriately brief. It lacks front-loaded information and doesn't earn its place with useful content, resulting in poor structure.

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 complexity of a list operation with pagination parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'transactions' entail, how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with two parameters and sibling alternatives, this minimal description fails to provide sufficient context for effective use.

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 parameters 'page' and 'limit' clearly documented as 'Page' and 'Limit.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining pagination behavior or default values. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema handles the 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 'List transactions' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_transaction' or 'get_balance,' nor does it clarify what kind of transactions are being listed (e.g., financial, user-specific). This minimal description fails to provide meaningful context beyond the obvious.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_transaction' (for single transactions) or 'create_transfer' (for creating transactions), nor does it specify any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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