Retrieve a partner's commission balance by external reference, showing pending, approved, and paid amounts in integer minor units of the payout currency.
A partner's own commission balance: pending (in its hold period), approved (due in the next payout) and paid, in integer minor units of currency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| partnerExternalRef | Yes | The partner's id in your own system (its externalRef). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns pending, approved, and paid balances, and amounts are in integer minor units of the given currency. It does not mention authorization requirements or response shape details, but the added return-value semantics are meaningful.
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 dense sentence with no wasted clauses, and it front-loads the resource being described. Its compactness is appropriate, though the lack of an explicit action verb slightly reduces immediate scannability.
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 read-only, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and their units. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying that the result is a balance object and how the three buckets relate, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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?
The single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the meaning of partnerExternalRef. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond referencing currency, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is 100%.
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 identifies a specific resource, the partner's own commission balance, and distinguishes the three balance buckets. It does not use an explicit retrieval verb or directly contrast itself with siblings such as my_next_payout, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
It implies the tool is for checking a commission balance, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as my_next_payout. The agent must infer the usage context from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.