what_do_i_oweCheck your current debt to a specific flatmate, or your overall balance across shared expenses.
Answer what the speaker owes one other person, or their overall position when no one is named. Use this for 'how much do I owe Chris'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| person | No | Who to compare against. Omit for the overall position. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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 readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful directional semantics: the amount is what the speaker owes another person, not what is owed to them. It also clarifies the default behavior when no person is named, which is genuinely useful beyond the structured annotations.
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 with no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded before the usage example. Every sentence 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?
For a simple optional-parameter query tool, the description plus annotations and output schema cover selection, invocation, and behavioral expectations. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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?
The input schema already documents the person parameter with 100% coverage, including that omitting it gives the overall position. The description reinforces this meaning but adds no new syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb ('answer'), a precise resource (what the speaker owes), and scopes the behavior to one named person or the overall position when no one is named. The example 'how much do I owe Chris' makes its purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings like show_balances.
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?
It gives a clear usage context with an explicit example ('Use this for how much do I owe Chris') and explains the no-person case. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.