checkout_transactionsFetch checkout transaction records for a salon within a specified date range, using pagination and optional search to review payments and sales activity.
Checkout transactions for a period.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, from 1 | |
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| query | No | ||
| per_page | No | Items per page, at most 100 | |
| date_from | No | First day (YYYY-MM-DD) |
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, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention pagination behavior, cache interaction implied by the 'fresh' flag, or what a returned transaction represents. Minimal value beyond structured data.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is short rather than bloated; the weakness is under-specification, which is penalized elsewhere, not verbosity.
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 five-parameter, open-world, paginated list tool with no output schema, the description says nothing about result contents, paging semantics, or the cache behavior implied by 'fresh'. It does not meet the burden the missing output schema places on prose.
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 80%, so the four documented params (page, per_page, fresh, date_from) already carry their own meaning. The 'query' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and the description makes no attempt to explain what it searches, leaving a real ambiguity unaddressed.
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 nearly restates the title verbatim ('Checkout transactions' + 'for a period'), adding only a vague date scope. It does nothing to distinguish this list tool from the sibling singular 'checkout_transaction', so an agent cannot tell which to reach for without opening schemas.
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 versus the very close sibling 'checkout_transaction', nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only usage signal ('for a period') is implied by the presence of date_from in the schema, not asserted by the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.