Retrieve sales records for a specified date range by providing start and end dates.
Busca vendas por período
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_sales"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endDate | No | Data de fim (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| startDate | No | Data de início (YYYY-MM-DD) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Busca' implies a read, but there is no statement about permissions, pagination, default date range behavior, or result size limits.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded and waste-free, but at this length it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least describe the return shape and what happens when the non-required date parameters are omitted. Neither is addressed, leaving a real gap for a tool whose two params are optional.
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 100% and both parameters already document their YYYY-MM-DD format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the notion of a period filter, which is baseline-level value.
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 ('Busca vendas') plus the filtering dimension ('por período'), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from any sibling, but no sibling in the list is sales-related, so the risk of confusion is low.
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?
Contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent gets the what but nothing about the context in which this is the right call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.