read_the_money_of_a_dealThe money of a won deal, as the deal shows it: whether the workspace's invoice system is working, the payment schedule a person accepted (each amount, when it falls due, its payment term), each invoice with the invoice system's number and link and its status as last read, how many reminders went for it, and whether every amount is paid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deal_id | Yes | The deal's id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, so the bar is lower; the description goes further by disclosing the snapshot nature of the data ('as the deal shows it', 'status as last read') and the exact facets returned. It stops short of noting freshness limits or auth requirements.
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?
One front-loaded sentence that spends every clause on return content rather than restating the title. It is dense and reads as a run-on list, but no sentence is wasted.
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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response and does so thoroughly, covering invoice-system health, payment schedule terms, invoice status, reminder counts, and paid state. Missing auth/pagination details and usage context keep it from a 5.
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?
Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents deal_id. The description adds no format or sourcing detail for the id, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 names the specific resource (the money of a won deal) and enumerates what that resource comprises, so an agent can distinguish it from get_deal or read_a_job. It never states the verb outright, but 'read' is implicit in the name and the content is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_deal, read_a_job, or mark_an_invoice_as_paid. The only inferred precondition is 'won deal', which is embedded in the prose rather than stated as a usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.