Retrieve a sale's full details by sale ID, including line items, payments, taxes, customer, and totals. Use it to answer questions about a specific transaction.
One sale in full: line items, payments, taxes, customer, totals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sale_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the response is a full record rather than a summary; it says nothing about behavior on missing IDs or whether totals are computed at read time.
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?
A single fragment with zero filler, and the scope statement is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of being a content list rather than a sentence, which slightly limits readability.
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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, yet the description spends its length listing them anyway. For a simple one-param read tool this is close to sufficient, but it omits not-found behavior and the distinction from search_sales.
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% and the single parameter carries no title beyond 'Sale Id', so the description must compensate. It gets partial credit because 'One sale in full' makes clear sale_id identifies a single record, but it adds no format, source, or validation 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?
States the resource (a single sale) and enumerates the payload components (line items, payments, taxes, customer, totals), which distinguishes it from aggregate siblings like sales_summary. The verb is only implied by the name 'get', and no explicit sibling is named, so it stops short of a 5.
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 only implied by the required sale_id and the singular 'One sale' framing: fetch details for a known sale. It never says when to prefer this over search_sales or what to do if the ID is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.