Read-only cash-settlement summary for a buyer: the list + exact sums (purchases, mass_g, cost_minor) of their retirements, optionally since an ISO-8601 timestamp — the statement a human settles in one transfer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| buyer | Yes | ||
| since | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it is read-only and optionally filters by ISO-8601 timestamp, but with no annotations, falls short on detailing auth needs, error behaviors, or data freshness.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently includes scope and optional filter.
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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, input parameters, and optional filtering, though it omits details like ordering or error responses.
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 description must compensate. It partially covers 'since' as an optional ISO-8601 timestamp but does not describe 'buyer' beyond its name.
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 it is a read-only cash-settlement summary for a buyer, listing exact sums of retirements. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying its unique role as a settlement statement for human transfer.
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 when to use (for a buyer's settlement summary) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with siblings like get_purchase or net_position.
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.