LUMINIS is under development, not a service credit, live token, sponsored month or payment method. Read the frozen private historical ledger only. Conversion is unavailable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_ref | No | Native connector: persistent individual-agent scope. Reuse the same reference on every call; omit to use the existing default account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / account_refAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Native connector: persistent individual-agent scope. Reuse the same reference on every call; omit to use the existing default account.",
+ "maxLength": 80,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description corroborates that by stating reads only and that conversion is unavailable, plus it adds useful framing that the ledger is frozen, private and historical. That is consistent context beyond the annotation, but it omits anything about scope, permissions, or result volume.
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?
Three short sentences, but the first is a five-item negative list that consumes the prominent opening position without telling the agent what the tool does. The functional information is buried in sentence two, so the structure is front-loaded with disclaimers rather than capability.
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 and a read-oriented tool, the description carries the burden of explaining what a ledger read returns (record shape, scope, volume), and it does not. Combined with the unexplained tool name, an agent has too little to call this confidently.
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?
Only one optional parameter exists and its schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics (persistent scope, reuse on every call, omit for default). The description adds nothing about account_ref, so baseline 3 is warranted.
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 only functional clause is "Read the frozen private historical ledger only," which names a verb but an undefined resource — "LUMINIS" is never explained, so an agent cannot say concretely what this tool returns. The bulk of the description is a list of five things the tool is *not* (service credit, live token, sponsored month, payment method), which is disambiguation noise rather than purpose.
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?
"Read ... only" and "Conversion is unavailable" imply a narrow read scope but never state when an agent should pick this tool over the 25 eclypse siblings, nor what conditions make it appropriate. No alternative is named, and no prerequisite is given for the optional account_ref.
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.