open_delivery_receiptOpens the comprobante + envío widget — a read-only view of the delivery receipt for a completed cobro. Accepts paymentIntentId, saleId, OR customerName.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| saleId | No | Velora Sale id (optional). | |
| customerName | No | Customer name (optional). | |
| paymentIntentId | No | Velora PaymentIntent id (optional). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral requirement that the cobro must be completed, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then concise parameter guidance. No filler or redundant words.
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 widget-opener with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, when it applies (completed cobro), and how to identify the target. No significant gaps.
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?
Input schema provides 100% coverage with per-parameter descriptions, but the description goes further by clarifying the 'OR' relationship among the three identifiers, indicating they are alternatives rather than a combination. This is semantic value not present in the schema.
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 opens the 'comprobante + envío widget' — a specific resource (delivery receipt for a completed cobro). The 'read-only view' qualifier and reference to completed cobros differentiate it from sibling open_* tools, even without naming them.
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 phrase 'for a completed cobro' gives clear context on when to use, and listing 'paymentIntentId, saleId, OR customerName' shows how to specify the target. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of 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.
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.