Retrieve all account invoices sorted newest first, showing payment status, amount, due date, and line items for paid, unpaid, or cancelled bills.
List every invoice on this account (paid, unpaid, and cancelled), most recent first — amount, status, due date, and line items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and complete-world behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that all statuses are included, results are sorted most recent first, and which fields appear. This is meaningful for a zero-parameter listing 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?
A single, well-structured sentence packs in scope, filtering coverage, ordering, and output fields with no filler. Every clause adds useful information, and the most important scope statement is front-loaded.
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 parameterless read-only listing tool, the description covers what the tool does, what data it returns, and the ordering. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and no output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden for return-value expectations and satisfies it well.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics by having none. Per baseline, zero-parameter tools receive a 4; the description also clarifies what the returned data contains, which further helps the agent understand the call's effect.
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 and resource: 'List every invoice on this account', and adds scope details (paid, unpaid, cancelled), ordering (most recent first), and returned fields (amount, status, due date, line items). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions and get_transaction.
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 clearly implies when to use it: whenever a full list of account invoices is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope 'every invoice on this account' is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.