Read financial data in Feegow. Actions:
list_suppliers, search_supplier, list_categories, list_cost_centers, list_transfers, list_invoices, list_current_accounts, find_invoice_nfse, list_credit_card_brands, list_vouchers, list_sales, list_private_tables, get_dmed. All params are passed as JSON in the "data" field.
[Flattened action: list_sales]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's 'Read financial data'. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., what data is returned, pagination, authentication needs). Since annotations cover safety, the description meets minimum expectations but adds little value.
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 includes a long list of unrelated actions (list_suppliers, search_supplier, etc.) that bloat the text and distract from the tool's actual purpose. The key information ('list_sales') is buried at the end. This is not concise; it could be trimmed to focus on the current tool.
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?
Despite annotations providing safety context, the description lacks details on how to use the parameters (data JSON format, account meaning) and what the tool returns. For a simple read operation, an agent needs guidance on input structure and expected output, both missing. The description is insufficient for confident invocation.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it only says 'All params are passed as JSON in the "data" field.' This hints at how to pass parameters but doesn't specify the required JSON structure for 'list_sales' (e.g., filters, date ranges). The 'account' parameter is unexplained. The added value is minimal.
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 starts with a generic 'Read financial data in Feegow' and lists many actions, not focusing on listing sales. Only the final line '[Flattened action: list_sales]' clarifies the tool's specific purpose, but it doesn't explain what 'list_sales' does (e.g., returns sales records). The purpose is vague and relies heavily on the tool name.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like feegow_financial_list_invoices or feegow_financial_list_vouchers. There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or contexts where list_sales is appropriate. The description fails to help an agent choose this tool over alternatives.
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.
Many tools have identical descriptions (e.g., multiple tools with same 'Read appointments and scheduling data' text) and only differ by a 'flattened action' label, making it impossible for an agent to distinguish which tool to call for a specific operation.
Names follow a loose verb_noun pattern but are extremely inconsistent: some use underscores, some have redundant prefixes like 'feegow_appointment_', and the same actions are duplicated across multiple tool names (e.g., 'list' appears in many). The 'flattened action' suffix is confusing.
94 tools is far too many for a clinic management system. This is clearly due to a one-action-per-tool design that fragments the API surface, making the server bloated and hard to navigate. A typical well-structured server for this domain would have 10-20 tools.
The server covers many areas (appointments, patients, financial, procedures, stock, etc.), suggesting broad functionality. However, the fragmentation obscures gaps and makes it difficult to determine if all CRUD operations exist for each entity. Some areas (e.g., stock write) have multiple tools for single actions.