get_revenue_goal_statusRead the active revenue goal, measured funnel, contribution margin, and the next bounded improvement recommendation. This tool never changes price, spends funds, or sends messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds specific context about what it reads (active revenue goal, funnel, margin, recommendation) and reassures about no side effects, exceeding annotation basics.
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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and key outputs, the second sentence adds a safety clarification. 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is complete—it specifies exactly what data is read and what side effects are absent, making it fully understandable in context.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered by default. The description adds value by describing the data and output focus, which is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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 a read operation ('Read the active revenue goal') with specific resources and outputs, and it is distinct from the sibling tools focused on verify_evidence.
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 clear context that this is a safe, read-only operation and explicitly lists side effects it avoids ('never changes price, spends funds, or sends messages'), though it does not name alternatives or exclusions.
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.
The tools mostly have distinct purposes, but there is overlap between quote_verify_evidence and prepare_verify_evidence_purchase, both involving quotes, and describe_verify_evidence also mentions validation. This could cause some confusion for agents deciding which tool to call.
All tool names follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case, which is consistent. The only minor deviation is get_revenue_goal_status, which is longer but still verb_noun. Overall, the naming is predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a verification utility with a payment flow. Each tool serves a distinct step in the workflow without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle from description and status checks through quoting, purchase preparation, and final verification. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.