Calculate total business profit and loss by comparing total spend against realized and unrealized value across all listings to answer overall performance questions.
Get overall business P&L across all boxes/listings (total spend vs. total realized + unrealized value). Use for "how is the business doing overall" questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains what the result represents (total spend vs. realized + unrealized value), but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, data freshness, or any side effects. The 'Get' verb implies non-destructive behavior, but that is not made explicit.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function and formula, and the second sentence gives a direct usage example. Every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is computed, the scope, and when to use it. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the named components ('total spend', 'realized + unrealized value') give sufficient context for an agent to interpret 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Per the calibration baseline, 0 parameters warrants a 4; the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than on nonexistent inputs.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('overall business P&L across all boxes/listings'). It also specifies the computation basis ('total spend vs. total realized + unrealized value'), which distinguishes it from more granular siblings like get_box_pnl.
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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use for "how is the business doing overall" questions.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.