Identify dormant-but-paying accounts — revenue that still counts in MRR but whose customers have stopped showing up. Zombie revenue is one renewal notice from cancelling and is invisible to standard revenue dashboards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accounts | Yes | One entry per paying account. | |
| threshold_days | No | Days of inactivity before an account counts as dormant. Default 90. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that zombie revenue is invisible to standard dashboards and one renewal notice from cancelling, providing useful context. However, it does not specify if the tool is read-only or has destructive side effects.
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 concise sentences with no fluff. The key purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds value. Ideal length for quick agent comprehension.
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?
No output schema, but the description implicitly states it identifies zombie accounts. For a detection tool, expected return (list of accounts at risk) is somewhat clear. Slightly lacking on return format details, but acceptable given tool simplicity.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining threshold_days default and the relevance of accounts fields (mrr, days_since_last_activity) to zombie detection, enhancing understanding.
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 identifies dormant-but-paying accounts, specifying the verb 'detect' and resource 'zombie MRR'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_revenue_concentration' by focusing on revenue invisibility and renewal risk.
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 use when you want to find revenue at risk of cancellation, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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 concept (revenue concentration, churn rate, LTV, zombie MRR, scoring bands, composite health). No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., analyze_revenue_concentration, calculate_churn_rate). No mixed conventions.
6 tools is well-scoped for a specialized churn analytics server. Each tool earns its place, covering key metrics without bloat.
The tool surface covers the core churn analytics workflow: concentration, churn rates, LTV, zombie detection, scoring bands, and composite health. No obvious dead ends.
