payping_get_sales_summaryGet sales totals for a date range: total amount in Toman, transaction count, and daily averages. Defaults to the last 30 days if dates are omitted.
Sales totals for a period: total amount (Toman), transaction count and daily averages. Defaults to the last 30 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_date | No | Last day to include (YYYY-MM-DD, UTC). | |
| from_date | No | First day to include (YYYY-MM-DD, UTC). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / from_date / titleRemoved value: -"From Date"Input schema / properties / to_date / titleRemoved value: -"To Date"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"payping_get_sales_summaryArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "payping_get_sales_summaryDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value an agent cannot get from annotations: the returned metrics (totals, count, daily averages) and the default trailing-30-day window when no dates are supplied.
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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the default-window behavior. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 read-only, idempotent summary with a rich annotation set and full parameter documentation, the description covers purpose, return fields and default range. It could be slightly more explicit about how the daily averages are computed or the aggregation boundary, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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 100% and both date parameters are documented with format. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that omitting the dates means the last 30 days, resolving the null defaults the schema leaves unexplained.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Sales totals for a period') and enumerates what is returned (total amount in Toman, transaction count, daily averages), so the agent knows exactly what this summarizes. It does not explicitly differentiate against siblings like payping_list_transactions, but no sibling offers a summary, so ambiguity is low.
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?
'Defaults to the last 30 days' implies the intended context of a periodic summary, but it never states when to prefer this over list_transactions for detail or get_balance for point-in-time figures. Usage is implied rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.