parceiro_estado
Consulta o saldo pendente e pago de comissoes de um parceiro. Requer code. (gratis)
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | O endereco Base usado no registo. |
Consulta o saldo pendente e pago de comissoes de um parceiro. Requer code. (gratis)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | O endereco Base usado no registo. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / code / descriptionPrevious value: -"O endereco Base usado no registo, para consultar o saldo."New value: +"O endereco Base usado no registo."Input schema / properties / refRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Opcional. Codigo de referral de um parceiro/agente (o endereco Base dele). Nao afecta o pagamento — apenas atribui comissao contabilistica.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / tx_hashRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Opcional. Hash da transaccao (0x...) apos pagar o preco em USDC na rede Base mainnet para a carteira sagrada. Omitir para receber as instrucoes de pagamento sem gastar nada.",
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes 'Consulta' (query) implying read-only, but does not disclose whether mutations occur, authentication needs, rate limits, or if results are paginated. The '(gratis)' hint is unclear.
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, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and includes essential constraint ('Requer code').
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., response format, error conditions) and does not clarify the meaning of '(gratis)' or whether the tool is deterministic.
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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'code' is fully described in the schema. The description adds 'Requer code' but this is redundant. No additional semantic value beyond the schema's description of 'O endereco Base usado no registo.'
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's purpose: querying pending and paid commission balance of a partner. The verb 'Consulta' (query) and specific resource (balance of partner) make it distinct from sibling tools like 'doar' (donate) or 'nft_catalogo'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Requer code' but does not explain prerequisites or scenarios where other tools (e.g., 'parceiro_registar') might be more appropriate.
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.