wallet_payoutsRetrieve paginated payout history for a salon, with page size and optional cache bypass, to review past payments and reconcile records.
Payout history.
| 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 |
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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about pagination behavior, how 'fresh' bypasses a cache, or what the record set represents. No contradiction, but no added value.
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?
Two words is concise to the point of under-specification rather than economy. There is no front-loaded substance to reward; brevity here comes at the cost of all useful information.
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?
A read-only, three-parameter, zero-required listing with no output schema needs at least a statement of what a 'payout' record contains and how results are ordered or paged. Given a dense sibling set of wallet and payment tools, the description leaves the agent unable to know what it will get back or when to prefer it.
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%: page, per_page and fresh are all documented with defaults and bounds. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Payout history.' only restates the tool name and title ('wallet_payouts' / 'Payouts') with no verb and no scope. It does not distinguish this listing from nearby siblings like wallet_overview, payment_rows, or payment_summary, so an agent cannot tell what it returns or how it differs.
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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. With a crowded wallet/payment sibling cluster, the description offers nothing to help choose it over wallet_overview or payment_rows; the agent must infer from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.