Explain accounting exceptions by returning raw invoice and payment rows plus the vendor for underpayments, duplicates, currency mismatches, or overdue invoices.
Return the raw invoice and payment rows behind an exception, plus the vendor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoice_id | No | ||
| payment_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation by saying 'Return,' but does not state read-only safety, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose output schema already covers return values.
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?
The output schema covers return values, but the description leaves out parameter usage, exception definition, and when-to-use guidance. Given two optional parameters and no annotations, it is not complete enough for reliable invocation.
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 0%, and the description does not mention invoice_id or payment_id at all. An agent must infer their filtering behavior from the schema names alone, with no explanation of optionality or how they select an exception.
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 verb and resource: it returns raw invoice and payment rows behind an exception plus the vendor. This distinguishes it from generic siblings like run_sql, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or define what 'exception' means in this domain.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus run_sql, vendor_balances, or reconcile_ledger. The phrase 'behind an exception' implies a context, but no alternatives or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.