Retrieve sales totals for the last 1–30 days (default 7) and report the peak sales day, with voice-ready Nicaraguan Spanish responses.
Ventas de los últimos N días (1-30, default 7) con el mejor día, en voseo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dias | No | Período en días: 1 a 30, default 7 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only sales query but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or what exactly is returned beyond 'el mejor día'; the phrase 'en voseo' is ambiguous.
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 little wasted wording. The only clarity issue is the unexplained phrase 'en voseo', which may confuse readers despite the overall brevity.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, so it does not need extensive parameter explanation. Still, with no output schema, the description could better specify the return shape, such as what 'mejor día' means and how sales values are presented.
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?
There is one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines the range and default. The description repeats that information but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 resource and scope: sales for the last N days plus the best day. It is distinguishable from ventas_hoy by its multi-day window, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as informe_ventas.
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?
Usage is implied by the period scope: it is for sales over a 1-30 day range rather than just today. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives such as ventas_hoy or informe_ventas.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.