list_outstanding_invoicesList the outstanding (sent, viewed, or overdue) invoices with aging buckets and the oldest one. Answers "who still owes me money, and how old is the oldest invoice?"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| basis | No | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| invoices | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with those by only listing invoices. It adds useful behavioral context about which statuses are included and that aging buckets are produced. It does not contradict annotations and provides enough operational clarity for the simple read-only nature of the tool.
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 one tight, front-loaded sentence followed by a user-question framing sentence. Every word contributes: the statuses, the aging-bucket output, and the business question are all present with no filler.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, has an output schema, and is covered by read-only/destructive annotations, the description is complete for the agent's selection task. It defines scope and output in a way that fully supports reasoning about whether to invoke this tool.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters requiring explanation. With no input schema burden, the baseline of 4 applies; the description usefully frames what the query means even though parameter semantics are vacuous.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly defines the resource: outstanding invoices filtered to sent, viewed, or overdue statuses. It also states what the output conveys (aging buckets and the oldest invoice), which distinguishes it from related tools like list_recent_invoices and list_bills_owed.
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 gives a clear use case by answering 'who still owes me money, and how old is the oldest invoice?' This implies when to use it, and the status definition differentiates it from invoice listing or bill-paying siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
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 specific financial, client, project, or tax aspect with clear, distinct descriptions. Overlaps like get_cost_summary vs get_expense_summary are resolved by explicit scope differences (costs include mileage and bills; expenses are line-item). No two tools serve the same purpose.
All 25 tools follow a strict `verb_noun` pattern: `get_` for detailed summaries and `list_` for enumerations. No mixed conventions (camelCase, abbreviations) are present, making the pattern predictable for an agent.
At 25 tools, the set is on the larger side but fully justified by the breadth of the domain (financial summaries, clients, projects, taxes, contacts, time, mileage). Each tool covers a distinct slice; minor redundancies (e.g., cost vs expense summary) are acceptable due to nuanced differences.
The surface covers essential business operations: revenue, costs, expenses, cash, invoices, bills, projects, clients, contacts, taxes, time, mileage, and goals. Notably missing are any mutation tools (create/update), but the server appears intentionally read-only (analytics/reporting). For that purpose, the coverage is strong.