Retrieve tutor payouts with filters for date range, tutor ID, and pagination to track earnings.
List Payouts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | paid_at <= ISO date | |
| from | No | paid_at >= ISO date | |
| limit | No | Records per page (default 20, max 100) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| tutor_id | No | Filter by tutor UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It does not mention date filtering, pagination behavior, or ordering, though these are inferable from parameters.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides no meaningful content, so its brevity does not serve the agent.
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 list tool with five parameters and a large sibling set, the description is far too sparse. It lacks guidance on filtering semantics, relationship to payment vs invoice listing, or when pagination parameters matter. The annotations and schema cover safety and parameter names, but not usage context.
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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning, so it relies entirely on the schema, which is sufficient for a baseline score.
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 'List Payouts' is a tautology that simply restates the tool name and title. It identifies the resource but does not distinguish this tool from siblings like list_payments or get_payout.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_payments or get_payout. No context is provided about which scenarios call for listing payouts as opposed to retrieving a single payout.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.