Retrieves the indexed list price for a specific code on a given execution date, supporting invoice validation under Article 4.2.
List price for a code on an execution date (YYYY-MM-DD or DD-MM-YYYY), indexed per Art. 4.2.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| folder | No | ||
| execution_date | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses accepted date formats and an indexing rule ('indexed per Art. 4.2'), but it does not explain behavior for missing codes, permissions, or the role of the optional folder parameter.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the resource, required inputs, date format options, and domain indexing rule into compact wording.
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 simple read tool with three parameters, the description covers the main purpose and date semantics. However, it leaves the folder parameter unexplained and does not describe the return value or error behavior, making it only minimally complete.
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 the description must compensate for all three parameters. It clarifies the code and execution_date inputs, including accepted date formats, but completely omits the folder parameter, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('List price') and ties it to a code and execution date, so the tool's core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but none of the listed siblings appear to retrieve prices, 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?
The description says what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, or which alternative tool to choose. The reference to Art. 4.2 provides domain context but is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.