Retrieves a client's account statement showing documents, paid amounts, open balance, and overdue items for a selected period.
Estratto conto di un cliente: documenti, pagato, saldo aperto e scaduto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | Default: inizio dell'anno precedente | |
| client_id | Yes | ||
| company_id | No | Azienda su cui operare. Default: FIC_COMPANY_ID o l'unica azienda del token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds some behavioral value by indicating the response aggregates documents, paid amounts, open balance, and overdue amounts, but it does not say whether this is a computed snapshot, whether it paginates, or what period the 'scaduto' figure covers.
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?
A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description bears the burden of explaining what comes back, and it only lists four content labels with no shape, units, or period semantics. For a financial reporting tool an agent cannot tell what fields to expect or how to interpret the open versus overdue split.
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 coverage is only 67%: 'from' and 'company_id' carry descriptions, while 'client_id' (the sole required parameter) has none. The description supplies no parameter meaning whatsoever — no mention of the date range, the company scoping, or how the period affects the reported balances — so it fails to compensate for the gap.
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 names a specific resource ('Estratto conto di un cliente') and enumerates the content it produces (documenti, pagato, saldo aperto, scaduto), so an agent knows this is a per-client statement/report rather than a generic list. It does not distinguish itself from near neighbors such as receivables_report or get_client, leaving the boundary implicit.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With sibling tools like receivables_report, get_client, and list_issued_documents, the description gives no hint which one an agent should pick for a client-level balance question versus an aggregate receivables view.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.