get_payeeFetch a single payee by its ULID. Returns its name, normalized name, default category id, and transfer info. Use to resolve one payeeId to its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payeeId | Yes | Payee id, from list_payees or a transaction. | |
| householdId | No | Household ULID to act on. Call list_households for the covered households; may be omitted only when the connection covers exactly one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / payeeId / descriptionAdded value: +"Payee id, from list_payees or a transaction."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already signal read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'Fetch' wording aligns with that. It adds the returned field set, but it does not disclose details like missing-payee behavior or household-scoping constraints, which is acceptable given the simple read-only nature.
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?
Three short sentences: what the tool fetches, what it returns, and when to use it. The description is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant schema repetition.
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?
The tool is a simple getter with fully documented parameters and read-only annotations. The description covers the input source, the singular scope, and the return fields, so no information needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 both payeeId and householdId already explained clearly in the schema. The description adds that payeeId is a ULID and that the tool resolves one payee to its name, but does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Fetch a single payee by its ULID.' It also names the returned fields, which distinguishes it from list_payees and the other get_* siblings.
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 last sentence gives a clear intended use case: 'Use to resolve one payeeId to its name.' It does not explicitly point to list_payees as the alternative for fetching many payees, but the singular context is clear enough.
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.