Retrieve retail sales totals by payment type for a business unit and date range to answer how much sales were made.
Convenience: retail sales totals by payment type for a PJ + date range (wraps mpobracun/placanja). Prefer this for 'how much sales'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pj_uid | Yes | Business unit UID e.g. 4986-1 | |
| to_date | No | End date | |
| from_date | Yes | Start date YYYY-MM-DD or D.M.YYYY |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a convenience wrapper over mpobracun/placanja, signalling aggregation rather than raw records, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or the shape/size of the returned aggregates.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the selection cue. 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?
With no output schema, the description does briefly indicate the return shape ('totals by payment type'), which is the key thing an agent needs. A wrapper tool with 100% schema coverage and no annotations is adequately described, though optional to_date behavior and aggregation granularity remain unstated.
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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema (pj_uid example, from_date format, to_date). The description echoes 'PJ + date range' and adds the 'by payment type' grouping concept, but contributes no format or default semantics beyond the schema.
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: 'retail sales totals by payment type for a PJ + date range', and discloses the underlying sources it wraps (mpobracun/placanja). It is clear about what it returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling luceed_retail_sales_by_product.
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?
'Prefer this for "how much sales"' provides a concrete selection cue and implies alternatives exist, giving the agent a clear context for choosing this tool. It stops short of naming the alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., when per-product breakdown is needed).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.