Process total or partial refunds for received payments in Asaas by supplying the payment ID and optional refund amount. Use it to reverse charges fully or partially.
Realiza o estorno total ou parcial de uma cobrança recebida
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | No | Valor parcial a estornar (se omitido, estorna o valor total) | |
| payment_id | Yes | Identificador único da cobrança no Asaas | |
| description | No | Motivo ou justificativa do estorno |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a destructive, irreversible money movement but says nothing about authorization requirements, reversibility, timing/settlement effects, or what happens to the original charge — significant gaps for a refund operation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and its two modes compactly, though it could carry more context at the same length.
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 destructive financial mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin — it omits side effects, partial-refund validation behavior, and error conditions the agent needs to call it safely.
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%, so value, payment_id, and description are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the total-vs-partial distinction, which is already implied by the optional 'value' parameter; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb and resource (estorno = refund) and distinguishes two modes: total and partial. It is clearly separate from siblings like create_payment or cancel_subscription, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite (e.g., the charge must already be received/settled). The word 'recebida' (received) implies a precondition but is never framed as guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.