Retrieve a store credit report for all customers to see outstanding balances and credit amounts, so you can review liabilities and follow up on customer credit usage.
Store credit report across all customers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 cover the safety profile: read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful scope by saying the report spans all customers, but it does not add further behavioral context such as auth requirements, rate limits, or aggregation behavior.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the resource and scope immediately.
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 zero-parameter, read-only reporting tool with a full output schema and safe annotations, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly. It could be slightly stronger if it named what the report contains or when to choose it over other report tools, but the structured fields cover most needs.
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?
This tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently simple. The schema coverage is complete, and there is no parameter behavior for the description to clarify.
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 resource, a store credit report, and its scope, across all customers. It is clear enough to distinguish from customer-specific tools like get_customer, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other report-oriented siblings such as sales_summary.
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 phrase 'across all customers' implies an aggregate reporting use case rather than per-customer lookup. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.