Return bearer-owned, period-resolved included and overage usage with exact catalog lineage and conservation totals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It signals a read-only operation via 'Return' and adds useful behavioral context (bearer ownership, period resolution, data lineage), but it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, error cases, or whether account_id must match the bearer. This is adequate but not exhaustive.
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?
One dense sentence conveys purpose and key qualifiers without filler; front-loaded verb and structured qualifiers make it easy to scan.
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 an output schema available and only one required parameter, the description gives a clear high-level contract. It could add usage guidance or clarify period resolution, but for a read-only summary tool it is reasonably complete.
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 0% and the description never mentions account_id or its semantics. The single parameter is self-explanatory by name, and 'bearer-owned' hints at ownership scope, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of description.
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?
Clear verb 'Return' identifies the read action; specifies resource 'usage' and qualifiers (bearer-owned, period-resolved, included/overage, catalog lineage, conservation totals), distinguishing it from MRR-oriented sibling mrr_summary.
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 explicit when-to-use or alternative comparison is provided, though 'usage' and 'period-resolved' imply it is for usage summaries rather than MRR or subscription status. Sibling tools like mrr_summary suggest alternatives but are not named in the description.
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.