Retrieve an aged payables snapshot showing outstanding supplier balances grouped by aging periods. Optionally filter by date range to view payables as of a specific period.
Aged payables snapshot (read-only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_date | No | ||
| from_date | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does by explicitly stating 'read-only', which rules out side effects and makes the tool safe to invoke. The word 'snapshot' also discloses that the result is a point-in-time view rather than a live account balance, though auth and date-range defaults remain unspecified.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no waste; 'aged payables', 'snapshot', and 'read-only' all carry meaning. It is concise, though so brief that it leaves substantial context to be supplied elsewhere.
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?
Although an output schema exists and the tool has only two optional parameters, the description fails to explain the date semantics or the intended selection criteria relative to sibling reports. For a tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, this is not enough for confident invocation.
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 description says nothing about 'from_date' or 'to_date'. The agent cannot determine whether 'to_date' is the aging cutoff, whether 'from_date' filters transactions in the period, or how null defaults behave.
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 phrase 'Aged payables snapshot' clearly names a standard accounting report and, by specifying 'payables', differentiates it from the sibling 'aged_receivables'. It lacks a direct retrieval verb, but 'snapshot' plus 'read-only' conveys that the tool returns a point-in-time view.
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 guidance is given about when to call this tool rather than 'aged_receivables', 'trial_balance', or the other financial-report siblings. The only usage cue is the tool name and description phrase itself, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.