Returns a partner's next payout date and the approved commission amount included, so you can plan cash flow and verify scheduled payments.
When a partner's next payout run is (YYYY-MM-DD, or null when none is scheduled) and how much approved commission it would include.
| 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?
The readOnlyHint already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: the date format is YYYY-MM-DD, the tool returns null when no payout is scheduled, and the amount reflects approved commission that would be included. It does not explain amount formatting or error behavior, but with the annotation coverage this is above the baseline.
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 tight sentence with no wasted language. The key output concepts, date and approved commission amount, are front-loaded.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return semantics: next payout date, null behavior, and approved commission amount. Minor gaps remain around currency/decimal formatting and partner-not-found behavior, but the definition is largely complete.
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, partnerExternalRef, is fully described in the schema at 100% coverage, so the schema already carries parameter semantics. The description does not add syntax or lookup rules beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not enhancing.
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 states the specific resource (a partner's next payout run) and the two return values it exposes: the scheduled date and the approved commission amount. It is clear enough to separate this read preview from siblings like create_payout_run or approve_due_commissions, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and the description's focus on checking a partner's next payout, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus my_balance, partner_performance, or the payout-mutating siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.