Get Cashout

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds the endpoint but no extra behavioral context such as error handling or authentication requirements. It does not contradict 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 concise sentence in Portuguese, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 read-only get-by-ID tool, the description is mostly complete: it states the action and endpoint. It doesn't describe the return value or error cases, but annotations and the tool's simplicity make it sufficient for correct invocation. A bit more detail on the response would be beneficial, but not critical.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It says 'por ID' and the endpoint includes {id}, clarifying the single parameter's role. The schema already specifies UUID format, so the description adds moderate value but doesn't go beyond the obvious.

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 'Obtém saque por ID via /v1/cashouts/{id}' clearly states the action (get) and resource (cashout) with a specific identifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_cashouts and create_cashout by focusing on retrieval by ID.

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?

The description implies usage (you need an ID to fetch a single cashout) but provides no explicit guidance about when to use this versus list_cashouts or cancel_cashout. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.