aivy-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_earnings

Calculate energy bought, sold, and self-consumed for a chosen day or time window, priced at Amber half-hourly rates when linked. Use coverage to identify partial estimates.

Instructions

Energy bought, sold and self-consumed for a day (YYYY-MM-DD, 'today' or 'yesterday'), priced at the actual Amber half-hourly prices when Amber is linked. Optional HH:MM window for part of the day. An estimate from vendor power samples, not the bill; read coverage and say so when it is partial.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site_id": "<site_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_earnings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`site_id`	Yes
`window_end`	No
`window_start`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description itself discloses that results are estimates derived from vendor power samples, that actual Amber pricing is conditional on linkage, and that partial coverage must be surfaced by reading `coverage`. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or explain valuation behavior when Amber is not linked.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences front-load the scope and then add formats, pricing conditions, provenance, and the coverage warning. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema can carry return-field details, while the description covers the main invocation and interpretation requirements for this four-parameter getter. Sibling routing, site_id discovery, default and window-validation behavior, and non-Amber valuation remain undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

At 0% schema description coverage, the text adds substantial meaning by documenting date formats and keywords plus the optional HH:MM window. It does not explain where to obtain site_id, what a null date defaults to, or whether window_start and window_end must be supplied together and in which timezone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource and scope: energy bought, sold, and self-consumed for one day, valued using actual Amber half-hourly prices when Amber is linked. This is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as get_prices or get_curve.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides useful invocation context through supported day values and an optional HH:MM subwindow. Calling the result an estimate and 'not the bill' establishes an important limitation, but there is no explicit routing to an alternative for raw prices, curves, or billing questions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.