get_merchant_statsGet performance statistics for your merchant account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _meta | No | Internal metadata for transport |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | Reporting period | |
| totalVolumeCents | No | Total volume in cents | |
| totalTransactions | No | Total number of transactions |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope 'for your merchant account' but does not reveal additional behavior such as return format or limitations. Since annotations carry the burden, 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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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's simplicity, strong annotation coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a basic read-only stats operation. It lacks usage guidelines, but that gap is covered under its own dimension, and the overall completeness is acceptable.
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 schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter (_meta), documenting it as internal metadata. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, warranting the baseline score.
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 identifies the tool as retrieving performance statistics for the merchant account, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_balance and pay_merchant, which serve different purposes.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_balance or request_payment_authorization. It simply states what the tool does without specifying preferred contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.