GetV1InstancesPartnerFeesByIdRetrieves a partner fee by instance and fee ID, enabling you to verify fee details for payment operations and reconciliation.
Retrieve Partner Fee
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| instance_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes nothing beyond that — no note on what a 404 means, whether fees are tied to an instance, or any retrieval characteristics.
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?
Three words is concise but dramatically under-specified rather than efficient; there is no front-loaded scope statement or qualifier to anchor the reader. Brevity here is a deficit, not a virtue.
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 two required undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations explaining return shape, the description should carry the burden of explaining what a Partner Fee record is and what identifying it requires. It supplies none of that.
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%: neither `id` nor `instance_id` has any description, and the description text mentions no parameters at all. It does not even clarify that both are required nor explain the relationship between the instance and the fee ID, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 "Retrieve Partner Fee" restates the title and name almost verbatim, adding no scope, no statement that it fetches a single fee record by ID, and no differentiation from the sibling list tool GetV1InstancesPartnerFees. An agent learns only what it could already infer from the tool name.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given. It never contrasts itself with GetV1InstancesPartnerFees (list) or DeleteV1InstancesPartnerFeesById, which are the obvious alternatives, leaving routing entirely to the agent's guesswork about the 'ById' suffix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.