Supply-side disbursement ledger: how much each restoration project has earned from retirements and is owed (gross_proceeds_minor + retired_g). Pass a project_id for one project, else all. Read-only — the CEO settles the actual payout. This is what makes the clearinghouse fund restoration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and clearly declares the tool as read-only. It explains what data is returned and the context of the clearinghouse. No hidden behaviors or side effects are omitted. This is comprehensive for a simple query tool.
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 four sentences long, front-loading the core purpose. The final sentence ('This is what makes the clearinghouse fund restoration') is slightly redundant but not harmful. Overall concise and well-structured.
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 that there is an output schema (though not provided), the description sufficiently covers the input behavior (optional project_id), output contents (earned/owed amounts), and read-only nature. It provides a complete mental model for a user.
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 single parameter (project_id) has no schema description, but the description explains its effect: pass it for one project, omit for all. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema definition. A slight improvement would be specifying the format or constraints of the ID, but it is adequate.
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 identifies the tool as a supply-side disbursement ledger, specifying that it shows earnings and owed amounts for restoration projects, with specific fields (gross_proceeds_minor + retired_g). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like certify_disbursement or buy_offset.
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 explicitly states usage: pass a project_id for one project, or omit for all projects. It also notes the tool is read-only and that the CEO settles payouts, implying this is for viewing only. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, which would improve clarity.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation (e.g., book vs. list_credit vs. verra_supply; buy_offset vs. buy_offset_budget; certify_disbursement vs. verify_disbursement). No two tools have overlapping purposes, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (buy_offset, certify_disbursement, list_credits), but a few are noun phrases (book, disbursement_schedule, net_position, verra_supply). The naming is consistent in snake_case and readable, with only minor deviation from a pure verb-first style.
19 tools cover the full domain of a carbon offset clearinghouse: credit listing, purchase, project registration, disbursement, settlement, verification, and Verra integration. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary redundancy.
The tool set provides full CRUD for core entities (e.g., list, buy, verify, delist credits; register and fund projects) plus advanced features (budget-based purchase, certification, settlement, Verra records). Minor gaps like a missing update for projects or credits are acceptable given the domain's constraints.