receivables_agingRetrieve unpaid customer invoices bucketed by days past due (not due, 1-30, 31-60, 61-90, 90+) per customer to identify overdue balances.
Unpaid customer invoices bucketed by days past due (not due, 1–30, 31–60, 61–90, 90+), per customer, with the most overdue invoices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No | Default today |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral content beyond annotations: the bucketing scheme and the fact that output includes the most overdue invoices per customer. It stops short of stating return structure or row limits, so not a 5.
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?
One dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs the bucket boundaries without filler. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is omitted.
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 read-only, single-optional-param ageing report with no output schema, the description conveys scope, grouping dimension, and buckets. It could note the as-of semantics (retrospective vs current) but is otherwise complete enough to call 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 100% and the single param (as_of) is already documented with its pattern and default. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb+resource (receivables ageing) and enumerates the exact buckets (not due, 1–30, 31–60, 61–90, 90+) plus the per-customer and most-overdue framing. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling payables_aging (receivables vs payables) and from list_invoices.
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 it is a reporting/aggregation tool but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and doesn't name payables_aging or list_invoices as alternatives. Usage is largely inferable from the ageing-bucket framing, but no conditions or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.