Retrieve a parent's account balance by providing their parent UUID. Use this to check outstanding payments or credits for tutoring services.
Parent Balance
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parent_id | Yes | Parent UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parent_id | Yes | ||
| total_paid_cents | No | ||
| outstanding_cents | No | ||
| open_invoices_count | No | ||
| total_invoiced_cents | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of what 'balance' means, whether it is a single value or a computed sum, or any other runtime behavior.
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 consists of a single non-sentence phrase and is under-specified rather than concise. It does not front-load any functional information—it simply echoes the name and title.
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?
While an output schema exists and the tool has only one parameter, the absence of a functional description leaves a critical gap. The agent can only guess whether this returns a computed balance, a ledger, or something else, and no sibling differentiation is provided.
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%: parent_id is described as 'Parent UUID'. The tool description adds no parameter details, but the schema fully covers the single parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 is exactly the phrase 'Parent Balance', which merely restates the tool name and title. It does not use a verb or specify a clear action or resource, so an agent cannot tell what the tool actually does beyond the name itself.
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 about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_parent or list_payments. It does not state any context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.