payping_get_withdrawalLook up a PayPing withdrawal by code to get its amount in Toman, request and payout dates, IBAN, and bank tracking number.
Detail of one settlement by code: amount (Toman), request and payout dates, IBAN, bank tracking number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / code / titleRemoved value: -"Code"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"payping_get_withdrawalArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "payping_get_withdrawalDictOutput",
- "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. Because there is no output schema, the description's disclosure of the returned fields (amount, request/payout dates, IBAN, bank tracking number) and the 'Toman' currency unit is genuinely useful additional context beyond the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence that names the operation first and the returned fields second, with no filler. Appropriate size for a one-parameter read tool, though the telegraphic fragment style leaves little room for anything else.
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-by-id tool with no output schema and one opaque parameter, the description covers the resource and the returned fields adequately and annotations cover behavior. The main omission is not telling the agent where the required 'code' comes from.
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%: the single 'code' parameter is an undescribed string. The description adds only 'by code', clarifying it identifies the settlement, but gives no format, length or provenance for the identifier, so it only partially compensates for the documentation gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Detail of one settlement by code', and the singular framing implicitly contrasts with the sibling payping_list_withdrawals. It is very clear what it returns, though it never names an alternative explicitly to help an agent choose between the two.
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?
'by code' implies the tool is used once a settlement code is already known (e.g. from list_withdrawals), so usage is inferable. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, leaving the list-vs-detail choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.