get_workbook_downloadMint a short-lived signed URL for a frozen workbook version (the Excel file). Give the URL to your user to open in a browser — it needs no login and expires in about 10 minutes. The bytes are immutable and integrity-hashed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | Yes | The entity (client) id — from list_clients. | |
| snapshot_id | Yes | The snapshot id from list_snapshots. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: short-lived signed URL, ~10-minute expiry, no login required, immutable bytes with integrity hashing. These details help the AI understand the tool's behavior without needing to invoke it. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint=true annotation.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant phrasing. The second sentence adds essential usage and behavioral details without waste. Every clause earns its place.
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 description explains what the tool returns (a URL) and gives key attributes (short-lived, no login, immutable). It does not specify the exact response format (e.g., JSON field name), but for a low-complexity tool with no output schema, this covers the essential context. Slight gap in not mentioning any error conditions or prerequisites.
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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for client_id and snapshot_id, referencing list_clients and list_snapshots. The description adds minimal meaning for snapshot_id ('frozen workbook version') but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or format. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Mint a short-lived signed URL for a frozen workbook version (the Excel file).' The verb 'mint' is specific and the resource (workbook download) is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling download/upload tools by focusing on the frozen workbook version download.
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 clear context: 'Give the URL to your user to open in a browser — it needs no login and expires in about 10 minutes.' This implies the tool is for user-facing download of a frozen workbook, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action — get_* reads, save_* writes, confirm_* approves, preview_* shows consequences before approval. Even the management-data trio (budgets, allocations, variance) is cleanly separated by surface. Two-step flows like preview_chart_rebaseline → confirm_complete_chart are clearly sequenced, so an agent won't confuse the stages.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern: get_* for reads, list_* for discovery, save_* for section writes, confirm_* for approvals, create_* for new entities/centres, preview_* for pre-approval checks. The few one-offs (ingest_upload, upload_trial_balance, set_header_row) still fit the verb-first convention. No camelCase or style mixing.
At 67 tools this is well past the 'too many' threshold. While the Schedule III domain genuinely is broad — statutorily mandated sections, two-phase approval flows, readiness checks, and a separate management-data area — the surface is heavy; an agent will spend real effort just surveying the tool list. Some consolidation of the save_reserves/provisions/assets movements or merging preview+confirm pairs is possible.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: upload → mapping/costing → grouping → capture (all statutory sections) → declarations → readiness → generate → finalise → download, plus entity setup and consolidated statements. Minor gaps: no tool directly exposes historical version diffing beyond list_snapshots, and the management-data section (budgets, allocations, variance) feels bolted on rather than integral to the core flow.