Check cart item count, total price, and credit balance to verify your order amount before checkout.
Check the current shopping cart status and balance.
Args:
profile: Profile name (e.g. "child1"). Optional if only one profile is configured.
Returns:
Cart item count, total price, and credit balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does so by explicitly listing the returns (item count, total price, credit balance) and by noting the profile parameter is optional when only one profile is configured. The word 'check' implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate for this tool.
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 description is compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, then Args, then Returns. No redundant text or filler. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.
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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return content. The only minor gap is behavior when multiple profiles exist and no profile is supplied, but this is an edge case and the tool remains simple enough that the description is adequate.
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?
The input schema only provides a string type and default for 'profile', with no description. The description compensates by explaining that profile is a profile name, giving an example ('child1'), and clarifying the optionality condition. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema.
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 opens with 'Check the current shopping cart status and balance,' a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It is naturally distinguished from siblings like add_to_cart, remove_meal, and confirm_order, which are mutations, and get_order_history, which is historical rather than current.
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 phrasing 'Check the current...' provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever current cart status or balance is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose itself is unambiguous, giving a clear usage context without needing further routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.