pnl_expensesCustom operating expenses (subscriptions, VA, freight, 3PL…): scope, recurrence, amounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the report covers custom operating expenses and their dimensions, but it does not disclose aggregation behavior, time period, or response format.
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 a single compact sentence with examples and facets front-loaded, containing no filler. It is slightly telegraphic, but the information density is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Adequate for a read-only report with one optional parameter: it names the content area and the facets exposed. However, with no output schema and no mention of default time periods, aggregation, or how seller_connection_id affects results, some interpretation is left to the agent.
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%: the sole optional seller_connection_id is documented in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline score applies.
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 identifies the exact resource (custom operating expenses) and names representative categories plus the three reported facets: scope, recurrence, and amounts. It lacks an explicit verb but is clearly distinguishable from sibling P&L tools by its operating-expenses focus.
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 use this tool instead of alternatives like pnl_summary or pnl_breakdown, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The long sibling list makes the lack of selection criteria a meaningful gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.