get_package_profileComputes the shipment weight and item breakdown for a package. Accepts a saleId, a list of productIds, or an explicit weightGramsOverride.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| saleId | No | Velora Sale ID (takes priority over productIds). | |
| productIds | No | Array of Velora Product IDs (assumes qty=1 per id). | |
| weightGramsOverride | No | Explicit weight override in grams. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the tool computes weight and item breakdown, and describes input modes, which goes beyond annotation data. No contradictions found.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by input options. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundant repetition of schema details.
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?
For a read-only computation tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is computed (weight and item breakdown) and the accepted inputs. It could be slightly more explicit about output units (grams) but weightGramsOverride implies grams, so it is adequate.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description paraphrases the parameters ('saleId, list of productIds, explicit weightGramsOverride') but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. The priority of saleId over productIds is already in the schema, so the description adds no additional meaning.
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 'computes' and identifies the resource as 'package profile', clearly stating the tool's function: computing shipment weight and item breakdown. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like quote_shipping and track_shipment by focusing on computations rather than quotes or tracking.
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 implies usage by stating accepted inputs (saleId, productIds, weightGramsOverride), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no reference to sibling tools or exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as caja_registrar_movimiento vs register_movement, get_payment_intent_status vs open_cobro_status, and adjust_stock vs stock_load. The distinctions are not immediately clear from names/descriptions, causing a high risk of misselection.
Naming is inconsistent: mixes English and Spanish (caja_*, emit_invoice, send_whatsapp_*), and uses different patterns (open_*, get_*, query_*, list_*, etc.). Some names like stock_load and bulk_price_update don't follow a clear verb_noun convention.
50 tools is excessive for most contexts, even for a broad ERP-like domain. Many are UI widgets (open_*) that add clutter and could be consolidated, making the tool set feel heavy and harder to navigate.
The tool set covers many core business functions (products, suppliers, customers, sales, invoicing, shipping, cash register, payments, integrations). However, there are noticeable gaps: purchase requests have only create (no list/update/delete), shipments cannot be updated/cancelled, and sales lack direct update/query by ID.