Retrieve complete details for a bank, cash, or card payment account used to record receipts and payments. Use the account ID to view its configuration and balance information.
Dettaglio completo di un conto di saldo (banca, cassa, carta) su cui registrare incassi e pagamenti.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing beyond that: no behavior when the id does not exist or belongs to another company, no note on what 'complete detail' contains, no permission or scope context. The only added value is domain clarification of what a balance account is (bank, cash, card), which is definitional rather than behavioral.
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 well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately short for a simple two-parameter read, though the nominal phrasing is slightly less actionable than an explicit verb would be.
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 simple read tool with annotations present and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: an agent knows what it fetches. However, it leaves the required 'id' unexplained and does not indicate what the 'complete detail' actually returns, which matters since no output schema exists to fill that gap.
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 50%: company_id is documented in the schema (including its default fallback), but the required 'id' has no description anywhere. The description does not mention either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented id or to state whether id is account-scoped per company.
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 the resource precisely ('conto di saldo', clarified as bank/cash/card) and states it returns the complete detail of a single account, which separates it implicitly from list_payment_accounts. The verb is nominalized ('Dettaglio completo') rather than an explicit 'retrieve/get', and the distinction from siblings is only implied, so it stops short of a 5.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus list_payment_accounts (to browse) or update/delete_payment_account (to mutate). The only hint is the required id, from which an agent must infer that a listing call comes first. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.