L441-10: calendar day late-payment interest starts (the day after the due date), without a reminder. Accepts due_date or invoice_date + net_days. Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what output it produces. The unexplained phrase 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' is confusing and obscures rather than clarifies the tool's behavior. No side effects, errors, or state changes are mentioned.
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 short, but the inclusion of 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' is extraneous and unrelated to the stated purpose. The legal reference 'L441-10' and the computation rule are packed together without clear structure. Removing the payment fragment would improve conciseness.
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?
The description omits the return format, output schema, and any error or edge-case behavior. It does not explain how the input date is used or what value the caller receives. The mysterious payment sentence adds no contextual value and leaves the tool's contract incomplete.
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 declares zero parameters, yet the description says it 'Accepts due_date or invoice_date + net_days,' which contradicts the schema and leaves no formal parameter definitions. This inconsistency makes the actual inputs ambiguous. The description adds no clarity about types, formats, or required versus optional fields.
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 that the tool determines when calendar-day late-payment interest begins: the day after the due date, and that no reminder is required. The legal reference L441-10 and the tool name 'interest_start' reinforce this purpose. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'calculate' or 'return'.
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 does not explain when to use this tool versus sibling tools like late_penalties, penalty_text, or due_date. It provides no alternatives, conditions, or scenarios. The only hint is the 'without a reminder' clause, but it is not developed into actionable 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.
Many tools cover adjacent legal concepts such as down payments (acompte/arrhes), payment deadlines (due_date/due_eom/days_late), and identifier checks (check_siret/siren_from_siret/vat_key/eori), which can cause misselection. The descriptions do distinguish them clearly, but the sheer volume of overlapping categories still creates boundary confusion for an agent.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and are mostly short, readable French legal nouns or noun phrases, so there is a predictable stylistic pattern. The mix of French and English names and the occasional verb-led names like check_siret or siren_from_siret prevent a perfect score.
With 68 tools, this server is far beyond the well-scoped 3-15 tool range and even beyond the 50+ extreme-mismatch threshold. Each tool is a tiny one-purpose helper, but the set as a whole is overwhelming and should be grouped into fewer, broader tools or split into multiple servers.
The tool surface covers an impressively broad range of French legal needs: statutory invoice mentions, payment penalties, holidays, VAT calculations, identifier checks, warranties, withdrawal rights, and dunning steps. There are no obvious dead ends, and mention_fields acts as a completeness checklist for required invoice mentions.