get_state_wise_taxPer-state outward-supply and tax breakdown (taxable value, CGST/SGST/IGST, invoice count, intra/inter-state) for a period.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | Reporting period: mtd (default), last-month, qtd, or ytd. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming a safe read operation. The description adds context about the returned dimensions (state-wise, tax types, invoice counts) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like permissions, data freshness, or response size. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the key output (per-state outward-supply and tax breakdown) and packs supporting details into a parenthetical. Every word contributes, and there is no 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?
Given one optional parameter, clear read-only annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for selection and invocation. It could mention the source document (e.g., GSTR-1) for extra clarity, but this is not critical.
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 coverage for the sole parameter (period) is 100%, with an enum and description already provided. The tool description only mentions 'for a period' without adding syntax or format details, so it adds no meaningful value beyond 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's output: a per-state outward-supply and tax breakdown with specific components (taxable value, CGST/SGST/IGST, invoice count, intra/inter-state) for a period. This level of specificity distinguishes it from sibling tax-related tools like get_tax_summary or get_hsn_summary, which focus on other aggregations.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_tax_summary or get_gstr1_summary. The description only explains what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.
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.
Most tools target distinct data points (e.g., get_analytics_summary vs get_brand_score). However, 'search' and 'search_catalog' have overlapping functionality and could cause confusion, and 'fetch' is a helper tied to 'search', adding minor ambiguity.
The majority use consistent verb_noun snake_case (e.g., get_inventory, list_stores). Exceptions like 'fetch' and 'search' (without object) break the pattern, but they are few.
43 tools is excessive for a data-retrieval-only API. Many get_* and search_* tools could be consolidated (e.g., search_catalog, search_inventory, search_orders are similar). The large number will overwhelm an agent.
The tool set is entirely read-only (get, search, list, fetch). There are no create, update, or delete tools, which is a critical gap for managing e-commerce operations. Agents can only view data, not act on it.