Compare an e-Fatura CSV export with an expenses sheet to find missing invoices, mismatched amounts, VAT or invoice numbers, incomplete rows, and Portuguese records absent from e-Fatura.
Compare an e-Fatura CSV export with the expenses tab: invoices not in the sheet, rows whose amount, VAT or invoice number differ (or that lack fields e-Fatura has), and Portuguese rows e-Fatura lacks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | ||
| csv_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and leaves the key question unanswered: is this a pure read/compare or does it write discrepancies into the sheet? Nothing is said about side effects, whether the expenses tab must exist, what happens on a missing/malformed CSV, or how the report is presented.
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 dense sentence with no wasted preamble, front-loading the comparison before the parenthetical detail. The trailing list of discrepancy types is long but each item adds distinct 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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both behavior and result shape; it does the former partially (what counts as a mismatch) but not the latter (structure of the returned report), and it omits prerequisites and failure modes. Adequate to understand intent, insufficient to call confidently.
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%, so both parameters rest on the description — which never mentions them. It does not say what format csv_path expects (local path, upload dir, required e-Fatura columns) or that year selects which year's expenses tab is compared. A caller must guess at the CSV's expected shape.
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 gives a specific verb ('Compare') and both resources (an e-Fatura CSV export vs. the expenses tab), then enumerates the three discrepancy classes it surfaces. That enumeration effectively separates it from read_efatura or extract, though no sibling is named outright.
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 output categories — an agent can infer this is the audit step after an e-Fatura export exists. There is no explicit 'use when' statement, no prerequisite note (e.g. the year's expenses tab must already exist), and no guidance on when a different sibling like read_efatura or missing is the better first call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.