caja_consultar_saldoQueries the current cash register balance for the authenticated business — the open session data or the last closed session. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by defining exactly which data is queried (open or last closed session) and scope (authenticated business). It does not contradict annotations, and 'Read-only' is consistent with readOnlyHint. However, it omits return format and error behavior, providing only moderate transparency.
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, front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose and data scope without excessive detail. The 'Read-only' tail is slightly redundant given the annotations, but the overall structure is efficient and every phrase adds value.
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 query with strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers what is returned (a balance) and its data source. It lacks details about response structure or absence of data, but given the tool's simplicity and the provided context, this gap 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 no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description avoids repeating schema information and instead adds context about what is being queried, aligning with the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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 specifies the action ('queries') and the resource ('current cash register balance'), and adds scope by naming the data source (open session or last closed session). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_caja_status, which likely opens a status view rather than returning data.
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 implies usage when the current cash balance is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like open_caja_status or connection_status. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance relies on the obvious intent.
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.
Several tools duplicate the same underlying data in different presentation modes (get_payment_intent_status vs open_cobro_status, query_catalog vs open_catalog_selector, connection_status vs open_onboarding), creating ambiguity. Descriptions mention 'widget' vs JSON but an agent could easily pick the wrong one for a given task.
Tool names mix Spanish and English (caja_consultar_saldo vs validate_cuit) and use varying verb prefixes (open_, query_, get_, list_, find_, track_, quote_, validate_); only the open_ prefix is consistent.
22 tools sits at the high end of the borderline range; the server covers multiple domains (catalog, shipping, payments, fiscal) which justifies many tools, but some widgets and query equivalents could be consolidated.
The surface is heavily read-only: there are no create/update/delete tools for customers, suppliers, or products, and the only way to register a sale is through a widget that fires an internal function. There are also no tools to actually create a payment link or charge, leaving transactional workflows incomplete.