Generate an audit report showing negative derived stock balances for given products, returning JSON evidence and Markdown to clarify inventory discrepancies.
Return JSON evidence and Markdown for negative derived balances.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | No | ||
| product_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the response format and general subject, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how balances are derived, what data sources are involved, or any side effects. 'Return' weakly implies non-mutation, but that is not explicit enough.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the primary action and output format appear immediately. However, it is arguably too terse given the amount of missing context, so it is structurally clean but not fully appropriately sized.
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?
The definition is incomplete for safe tool selection: it lacks usage guidance among 23 siblings, read-only or safety qualification, and any parameter semantics beyond the raw schema. Even though the input schema is simple and an output schema exists, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to know when and how to invoke this tool correctly.
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%, and the description does not mention product_ids or the optional reference parameter at all. The schema only provides types and titles, so the description adds no meaning about what product identifiers should be passed, what 'derived balances' means, or how the reference parameter is used.
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 a specific output action: returning JSON evidence and Markdown for negative derived balances. It clearly identifies the subject matter, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related sibling tools like find_negative_lot_location_balances or generate_product_stock_audit_report.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many related sibling tools for stock moves, balances, and audit reports. The phrase 'negative derived balances' is the only implied use case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.