Lists chargebacks awaiting a response, ordered by urgency, so payments teams can prioritize evidence and respond before deadlines.
List chargebacks that need a response, most urgent first.
Args: as_of: Date to count days left from, YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely new behavioral facts: results are filtered to disputes needing a response and are ordered most-urgent-first. It says nothing about pagination, result volume, or how urgency is computed, so it adds context but not richness.
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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and waste-free. The Python-docstring 'Args:' block is slightly awkward for a tool description but is compact and adds real parameter meaning rather than noise.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the single optional parameter is fully explained in the description. For a simple read-only list tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 0% — the schema only types 'as_of' as an optional string with a null default. The description compensates by giving the format (YYYY-MM-DD), the semantic ('date to count days left from'), and the default (today). The only residual ambiguity is what deadline the 'days left' is measured against.
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 a specific verb and resource ('List chargebacks') plus a scoping condition ('that need a response') and a sort order ('most urgent first'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name or distinguish itself from the related sibling 'triage_dispute', so it stops short of 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?
The phrase 'need a response' implies the use case (find disputes awaiting action), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives such as 'triage_dispute' or 'draft_evidence_pack'. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.