Calculates total one-off support and Extras amounts per currency over a recent period, excluding refunds and revoked purchases, and alerts when data is incomplete.
Total one-off supports and Extras by currency over a recent window, excluding refunds and revoked purchases. Returns an error if the page cap prevents a complete summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| max_pages | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that refunds and revoked purchases are excluded and that an error occurs when the page cap prevents a complete summary.
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?
Two tight sentences. The first states the core aggregation, grouping, and exclusions; the second flags the error condition. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.
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-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential semantics: what is totaled, how it is grouped, what is excluded, and a failure condition. It could specify the exact return shape more, but 'by currency' gives enough to understand the result.
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%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It hints at 'recent window' for days and 'page cap' for max_pages, giving useful context, but it does not explicitly map those concepts to the parameter names or explain their effect on the result.
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 clearly states the tool produces totals of one-off supports and Extras by currency, over a window, and explicitly excludes refunds and revoked purchases. This is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling list tools, which provide itemized records rather than aggregate summaries.
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 use case is implied: it is the summary/aggregation counterpart to the sibling list tools. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer summary over list_supporters, list_extra_purchases, or list_subscriptions, nor does it state exclusions like 'use lists for itemized data'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.