Retrieves approved supplier bills that remain unpaid and are due within a specified window, including overdue bills, so you can review upcoming cash obligations.
Approved supplier bills not yet paid, due within the window (overdue ones included). Needs FINOPS_BILLS_DB (an invoice-intake register) or demo mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| due_within_days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the inclusion rule that overdue bills are returned even outside the window, and the hard data-source dependency on FINOPS_BILLS_DB or demo mode. It omits return shape and pagination, but for a read-only list that is a minor gap.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope definition and followed by the operational prerequisite. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.
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?
A single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema needs only scope, inclusion rules, and preconditions, all of which are present. It stops short of saying what fields the bills carry (amounts, aging, supplier names), which would help an agent decide whether one call is sufficient.
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?
Only one optional parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load; it implies the window semantics ('due within the window') and clarifies that overdue items are included regardless. It still does not state the unit for due_within_days, the default of 14, or what happens if the value is omitted.
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?
States a specific resource (supplier bills) with precise scope qualifiers: approved, not yet paid, due within the window, overdue included. It implicitly contrasts with the 'receivables' sibling by naming payables, but never explicitly differentiates itself from it or from 'payouts'/'disputes'.
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?
Gives a real prerequisite: 'Needs FINOPS_BILLS_DB (an invoice-intake register) or demo mode,' which tells the agent when the tool will actually work. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like payouts, payout_breakdown, or cash_forecast, leaving the selection decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.