Track medication costs and adherence across a date range, providing total spend, units bought, doses given, days medicated, and average daily doses.
Cost and adherence per medication in a period.
Returns how much was spent, how many units were bought, how many doses were given, on how many days, and the average doses per day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | Yes | ||
| start_date | Yes | ||
| medication_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The 'Returns...' phrasing implies a read-only reporting operation, but with no annotations the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention auth or limit considerations.
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 concise and front-loads the core purpose, then lists the output metrics. No filler or redundancy.
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 description enumerates return fields, which is helpful given no output schema, but it omits parameter semantics and does not clarify whether medication_name is a filter or grouping key.
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 explain start_date, end_date, or the optional medication_name filter, nor their expected formats or semantics.
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?
Description clearly identifies a medication-specific report of cost and adherence metrics over a period, and enumerates the returned values. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like routine_report, so not a 5.
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 given on when to choose this over sibling tools such as routine_report or search_records. The description states what it does but not the circumstances or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.