cash_register_operationsRetrieve cash-in and cash-out operations for a specific register to review cash movements and support reconciliation.
Cash in and out operations of one register.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, from 1 | |
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| per_page | No | Items per page, at most 100 | |
| registerId | Yes | Register id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the tool concerns one register, and omits pagination behavior, cache/fresh semantics, and what is actually returned; the word 'operations' is also ambiguous enough to risk suggesting mutation despite readOnly annotations.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification. It is front-loaded only in the sense that there is nothing else to read.
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 four-parameter paginated read tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify the return shape, pagination, cache behavior, or whether 'operations' means records versus actions.
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 registerId, page, per_page, and fresh are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline because the schema carries the burden.
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 is a noun phrase ('Cash in and out operations of one register') without a clear verb, so it does not say whether this lists cash movements, returns a register summary, or performs an action. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like cash_register or cash_registers.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus cash_register, cash_registers, or payment tools. The phrase 'one register' hints at single-register scope but does not state how to choose among alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.