get_customer_balanceRetrieve a business partner's account balance, open orders balance, open deliveries balance, and credit limit using the exact card code to assess credit exposure and outstanding activity.
Account balance, open orders balance, open deliveries balance and credit limit for one business partner.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cardCode | Yes | CardCode (exact code, case-sensitive on HANA) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the payload contents (four balance figures plus credit limit), which matters since there is no output schema. It says nothing about behavior for unknown card codes, empty results, or whether balances are real-time.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the returned metrics with zero filler. It is a noun fragment rather than a full sentence, which is minor, but every word carries 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?
For a one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient; enumerating the returned fields compensates for the absent output schema. Missing are edge-case behavior and result-shape hints (e.g. whether all four figures are always present).
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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented, including case sensitivity on HANA. The description's phrase 'for one business partner' reinforces that cardCode identifies exactly one partner rather than filtering a list, but adds no format or lookup guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 names the specific resource (business partner) and enumerates the four values returned: account balance, open orders balance, open deliveries balance and credit limit. Combined with the tool name the verb is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with get_business_partner, so it falls short of sibling differentiation.
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: it fetches figures for exactly one business partner, which tells an agent this is a single-record lookup rather than a search. There is no statement of when to prefer get_business_partner or get_open_invoices, and no preconditions such as the card code needing to exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.