Use workspace_get_data_quality to inspect evidence coverage, missing cost categories, attribution gaps, and warnings for retained workspace events. Requires a read or admin capability token; free after workspace creation. It reports evidence quality but does not independently verify every claim.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspaceId | Yes | ||
| capabilityToken | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a useful limitation ('does not independently verify every claim') but omits other behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or rate limits. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
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 with three sentences, front-loading the purpose. It could be more structured but avoids unnecessary words.
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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers key aspects of use (what it inspects, token requirement, post-creation timing) and adds a limitation. It is largely complete for a data quality inspection tool.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly hints at the token parameter via the token requirement, but provides no details on workspaceId or token format. This adds minimal 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 inspects specific aspects of data quality (evidence coverage, missing cost categories, attribution gaps, warnings) for retained workspace events. It uses a specific verb 'inspect' and resource, and stands out from sibling tools focused on profit or reporting.
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 context: requires a read or admin capability token and is available after workspace creation. However, it does not specify when to prefer this tool over alternatives like report_verify or when not to use it.
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.
Tools are largely distinct, though profit_analyze and profit_calculate have overlapping purposes. Descriptions clarify the difference (findings vs totals), but potential confusion remains for agents.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (profit_*, workspace_*, report_verify). No mixing of conventions.
8 tools is appropriate for a profit ledger server, covering stateless analysis and persistent workspace workflows without excessive or insufficient tools.
Core CRUD-like operations are covered for both stateless and persistent modes. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit workspace deletion or listing), but the server's purpose is well-served.