Retrieve the current bill summary for a contract from your Israel Electric Corporation account, defaulting to your signed-in customer and first contract.
The current bill summary of a contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bpNumber | No | Business partner number; defaults to the signed-in customer's. | |
| contractId | No | Contract number; defaults to the first contract. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, yet it does not mention read-only status, authentication requirements, error behavior, or what happens when no contract is available.
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 sentence with no filler; the resource is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a simple two-parameter tool, though it is arguably too terse to earn more than a 4.
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?
The tool has no output schema or annotations, so the description should clarify return format and sibling distinctions; instead it only restates the resource, leaving key selection context 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 parameters are optional with defaults documented in the schema; the description adds no format or selection semantics beyond the phrase 'of a contract'.
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 identifies the resource as a current bill summary scoped to a contract, but it omits a retrieval verb and does not differentiate from siblings like list_invoices or get_invoice_pdf.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus list_invoices, get_invoice_pdf, or get_consumption; the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.