Retrieve a client's available DTE balance, including active packs, remaining documents, and expiration date. Use it to answer how many electronic tax documents the client has left to issue.
Obtiene el saldo de DTEs disponibles del cliente. Retorna packs activos, DTEs restantes y fecha de vencimiento. Usar cuando el cliente pregunta cuántos documentos le quedan o su saldo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the output (packs, remaining DTEs, expiration date), which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state whether it has side effects, requires authentication, or could fail. For a simple balance query, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Three short sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage trigger is placed at the end, maintaining readability. Every sentence contributes meaning without unnecessary detail.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, but this is not a gap. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate.
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 states a specific action ('obtiene el saldo de DTEs disponibles') and names the exact resource (DTE balance) plus what it returns (active packs, remaining DTEs, expiration). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_document_stats or get_numeration_summary, which focus on document counts or summaries rather than a balance concept.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Usar cuando el cliente pregunta cuántos documentos le quedan o su saldo.' This gives an unambiguous trigger condition. While it does not list alternatives or exclusions, the directive is specific enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.