List merchant-hosted checkout, supplier invoice, or merchant-order handoffs for an approved plan. Suppliers remain merchant of record and SupplySlate does not process funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purchase_plan_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| purchase_plan_id | Yes | ||
| merchant_of_record | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the business model: suppliers remain merchant of record and SupplySlate does not process funds. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action and scope, and the second provides important business context. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
With one parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description adds sufficient business context (handoff types, merchant of record, no funds processing). It is complete for a list operation.
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 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the purchase_plan_id parameter. However, the singular parameter is self-explanatory by name, and the phrase 'for an approved plan' hints at the requirement. This is adequate but not fully compensatory for the lack of schema documentation.
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 explicitly names the verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'merchant-hosted checkout, supplier invoice, or merchant-order handoffs' scoped to 'an approved plan.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_provider_checkout_handoff (create vs. list) and get_order (single order vs. list of handoffs).
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 when you need to view handoffs for an approved plan, establishing a clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'approved plan' prerequisite provides meaningful guidance.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource, role, or action. For example, list_orders versus list_supplier_orders clearly separates buyer and supplier views, and update_supplier_order versus update_supplier_order_issue versus update_supplier_order_return handle different concerns despite similar names. Rich descriptions eliminate ambiguity.
All tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_project, list_orders, update_supplier_capabilities, search_products). The style is uniform across reads, writes, lists, and searches, making the API predictable.
With 55 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. Even for a broad supply chain platform, 50+ tools hits the rubric's 'extreme mismatch' threshold. The domain is comprehensive, but the sheer number overwhelms and likely complicates agent tool selection.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from project creation, BOM management, sourcing, quoting, planning, checkout handoff, orders, returns, issues, warranties, catalog updates, supplier profiles, and validation. It handles buyer and supplier sides with appropriate state transitions, and includes meta tools for connection and schema guidance. No obvious critical gaps exist.