unit_balanceGet the account balance for a specific unit by unit code, including total charged, paid, current balance, overdue amount, and recent charges and payments.
Account balance of one unit in the building, by unit code (e.g. 'A-102'): total charged, total paid, balance, the part already overdue, and the latest charges and payments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit_code | Yes | Unit code, e.g. A-102 |
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=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that by disclosing the returned breakdown (total charged, total paid, balance, overdue portion, latest charges and payments), which matters because no output schema exists.
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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then lists the returned fields; no filler, no redundancy, nothing that could be cut without losing information.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return contents adequately, and annotations cover the safety profile. It does not say what happens for an unknown unit code or whether results are scoped to the caller's building context, which are minor gaps.
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% for the single parameter, and the description repeats the schema's own example ('A-102') without adding format rules, failure behavior, or lookup semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter fully.
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: the account balance of one unit, keyed by unit code, and enumerates the components (charged, paid, balance, overdue, latest activity). It is clear enough to separate from siblings like arrears, but it never names or contrasts them explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.
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 scope ("one unit in the building, by unit code") implies this is the single-unit lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on how it differs from arrears, and no exclusion conditions. Usage must be inferred from the phrase "one unit".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.