payping_get_withdrawalRetrieve full details for a single PayPing settlement by its code, including 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 |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the currency unit (Toman) for the amount, which is genuinely useful context, but enumerates return fields that the output schema already provides.
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 dense sentence with the resource and identifier front-loaded, followed by the useful field list. Nothing is wasted, though the return-field enumeration partly duplicates the output schema.
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 and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and sets expectations about the payload. The only real gap is not explaining where the 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?
There is one required parameter ('code') at 0% schema description coverage, and the description only tells us the code identifies a settlement ('by code'). It does not clarify the code's format, source, or whether it is the same identifier used by payping_list_withdrawals, so the compensation for the coverage gap is thin.
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 and resource ('Detail of one settlement by code'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling payping_list_withdrawals. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.
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 phrase 'by code' implies you need a known settlement code, which is a usable precondition, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus payping_list_withdrawals or what to do if the code is unknown. 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.