get_fiscal_readinessChecks whether the business is ready to emit real ARCA electronic invoices. Returns { ready, missing, guidance } where ready=true means all fiscal fields and the ARCA certificate are configured.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing the return structure {ready, missing, guidance} and the meaning of ready=true, offering context beyond the annotations.
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?
Two front-loaded sentences: the first states the action, the second explains the return object. 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?
With no output schema and zero parameters, the description fully covers behavior, including return values and the condition for ready=true. It is complete for a simple read-only check.
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 with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and adds no irrelevant detail.
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 uses the specific verb 'Checks' with a clear resource: 'whether the business is ready to emit real ARCA electronic invoices.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connection_status or validate_cuit, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 clearly implies the usage context: to check readiness before emitting real ARCA invoices. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool offers similar functionality, so the context is sufficient.
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.