Break down a Stripe payout by gross, fees, refunds, chargebacks, and net per category, map lines to journal accounts, and verify totals reconcile to the bank deposit.
What one payout is made of: gross, fees and net per category (sales, refunds, chargebacks, fees), mapped to journal accounts, and whether the lines add up to the amount that hit the bank.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payout_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the output: gross/fees/net per category, mapping to journal accounts, and a reconciliation check against the bank amount. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but given the annotations, this is sufficiently transparent.
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 that efficiently states the core purpose. It is slightly long but every clause adds useful information about what is returned, so it earns its place.
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?
With no output schema and a single parameter whose schema lacks description, the description carries the burden of explaining the return content. It successfully details the categories, account mapping, and reconciliation check. The missing input guidance is a minor gap, but overall it is complete for this simple read tool.
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% for the single required parameter 'payout_id'. The description does not mention the parameter or its expected format, only implying that a payout must be specified via 'one payout'. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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 clearly states it provides a breakdown of one payout by category (sales, refunds, chargebacks, fees) and includes reconciliation info. It is specific to a single payout, distinguishing it implicitly from a list-oriented tool like 'payouts', though no sibling is named.
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: you call this tool when you need a detailed composition of a single payout. There is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'payouts', 'balance'), nor any preconditions or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.