amberflo_list_prepaid_ordersList a customer's active prepaid credit orders for a product. API: GET /payments/pricing/amberflo/customer-prepaid/list?CustomerId=&ProductId=.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | No | Product id. Default "1". | |
| customer_id | Yes | The Amberflo customerId. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is minimal beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It mentions 'active' prepaid orders but does not disclose behaviors like ordering, pagination, limits, or error handling. The annotation already indicates read-only, but the description adds little additional behavioral context.
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 sentence with important information front-loaded. The API endpoint is included, which may be extraneous, but overall it is concise and avoids verbosity.
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 no output schema, the description should explain return format, pagination, or ordering. None of this is mentioned. The description is incomplete for a list operation that typically requires pagination or limit details.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds context by stating 'for a product' and mentioning the API endpoint, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'list', resource 'active prepaid credit orders', and scope 'for a customer and optionally a product'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'amberflo_get_customer_invoice' by specifying a unique resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings that might also list prepaid orders.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or equivalent tools. The description only states what the tool does.
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.