Return aggregate active live-mode subscription count, MRR minor units, and plan mix. No account or Stripe identifiers are exposed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the scope (active live-mode) and the privacy guardrail (no identifiers exposed), adding useful context beyond the empty schema. It doesn't cover data freshness or the exact definition of 'active', but it's reasonably transparent for a read-only aggregate.
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 sentences, first stating the function and second stating a key constraint. No redundancy, no fluff. Every word earns its place.
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 zero parameters, an existing output schema, and a simple aggregate scope, the description fully covers what the tool returns and what it explicitly avoids. There are no gaps for this level of complexity.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description implicitly confirms no inputs are needed.
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 a specific verb 'Return' plus a precise resource: aggregate active live-mode subscription metrics. It clearly differentiates from siblings like subscription_status (single subscription) and usage_summary (usage) by emphasizing MRR minor units and plan mix, and explicitly excludes identifiers.
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?
It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but it clearly frames the tool as an aggregate summary with no account-level identifiers, implying use for high-level revenue reporting rather than per-customer queries. This is clear context, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes: plan retrieval, checkout, portal, status, usage, MRR. The main overlap is between create_account and record_subscription, as record_subscription can create an account for a new bearer, which may confuse agents about when to call which.
The majority follow a verb_noun pattern (create_account, create_checkout_link, get_plan, list_plans, record_subscription). A few deviate: customer_portal_link (noun phrase), mrr_summary (acronym), and describe_agent (verb but not a subscription action), which slightly reduces consistency.
Ten tools is well within the ideal range for a subscription management server. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the domain—account, plans, checkout, portals, subscriptions, usage, MRR—so none feel redundant or missing.
The tool surface covers account creation, plan browsing, checkout session creation, subscription activation, status checks, usage summaries, and MRR. A notable gap is the lack of direct update/cancel subscription tools, though this is partially mitigated by the customer portal link, which delegates those actions to Stripe's hosted UI.