Retrieve a single purchase or expense by its ID from KikoBooks to view full purchase details for auditing, reconciliation, or record review.
Get a single purchase (expense) by ID from KikoBooks. Returns full purchase details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purchase_id | Yes | The Purchase/Expense ID to retrieve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool retrieves a single record and returns full details, but does not mention read-only nature, permissions, error behavior for invalid IDs, or anything about the return shape beyond 'full purchase details'.
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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes to identifying the operation.
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?
For a simple single-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose adequately. But with no output schema, 'Returns full purchase details' is vague about the actual return structure, and it omits error behavior, leaving gaps an agent might need.
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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, purchase_id. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates that retrieval is by ID, which the schema already documents.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('purchase (expense)'), and scope ('single ... by ID'), which distinguishes it from search_purchases and other get_* siblings. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives, so this is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.
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 when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'by ID' implies a prerequisite but does not tell the agent when to choose get_purchase over search_purchases or other retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.