Calculate a tutor's total earnings within an optional date range by providing their tutor ID.
Tutor Earnings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | Session starts_at <= ISO date | |
| from | No | Session starts_at >= ISO date | |
| tutor_id | Yes | Tutor UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tutor_id | Yes | ||
| period_end | No | ||
| earned_cents | No | ||
| period_start | No | ||
| unpaid_cents | No | ||
| paid_out_cents | No | ||
| sessions_count | No |
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, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as aggregation behavior, date filtering semantics, or what the earnings represent.
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 it is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It simply repeats the tool name and contains no substantive content for an agent to act on.
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?
Even with annotations and an output schema present, the core question of what this tool returns is unanswered. An agent cannot determine whether earnings are aggregated, date-bounded, or how they relate to payments/payouts.
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 each parameter has a description. The tool description contributes no additional meaning, but the schema already carries the semantic weight, 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 'Tutor Earnings' — a noun phrase that restates the tool name with no verb or explicit action. It 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. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or relationships to other earnings/payment tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.