Get Next Settlement Index

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description claims the tool reads data, but annotations set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, contradicting the read-only nature. This is a critical inconsistency that misleads the agent.

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 short with two sentences. The first sentence directly states the purpose; the second adds relevant context. It is efficient, though the mention of write operations might cause minor confusion for this read-only tool.

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?

Given the tool's role in the payment flow and the contradictory annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'next' means or how the index is used, though an output schema exists to partially compensate.

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 100%, so the schema already explains the three optional parameters (nonce, agentWallet, depositorWallet). The description adds no further meaning or usage guidance beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Read the next V2 settlement index' with a specific verb and resource, and places it in the SAP MCP payment and settlement flow, distinguishing it from sibling tools that might create or settle escrows.

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 provides clear context: 'Estimate or fetch state before creating escrows or settling calls'. It also mentions prerequisites for write operations, implying this is a read tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like sap_fetch_escrow_v2 or sap_fetch_pending_settlement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.