pnl_breakdownSettlement-basis account waterfall: revenue → refunds → COGS → gross profit → Amazon fees → contribution margin → advertising → net profit → expenses → net profit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_to | No | ISO date; default today | |
| currency | No | ||
| date_from | No | ISO date; default 30d ago | |
| seller_connection_id | No | Which seller connection (see account_sellers). Optional when the token has exactly one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation read-only; the description adds the settlement-basis scope and the ordered waterfall stages, which are useful output expectations. It does not explain how multiple seller connections or omitted parameters behave, but the schema partially covers that, so this is adequate-with-gaps.
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 arrow-chain format is extremely compact and front-loaded. The duplicate 'net profit' step ('net profit → expenses → net profit') creates a minor ambiguity, otherwise this would be a 5.
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 metric chain is a useful partial return-value description, and the schema covers date defaults and seller_connection_id. However, a tool with this many P&L siblings needs clearer selection context, and currency semantics plus settlement-basis meaning are left unstated.
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 descriptions cover three of four parameters, so the description does not need to restate them. The uncovered currency parameter is never explained, and the tool description contributes no parameter-specific meaning beyond implying settlement-date scope.
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 resource (account) and the type of report (settlement-basis waterfall) and enumerates the metric chain, so it is clear this produces an account-level P&L breakdown. It does not use an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from siblings such as pnl_summary or pnl_by_asin, but the 'account waterfall' wording is a clear purpose.
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?
No explicit guidance for when to choose this tool over the many P&L siblings (pnl_summary, pnl_period_cards, pnl_by_asin, pnl_expenses). 'Settlement-basis' is a hint but not a directive, and no alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.