growwer_download_seller_transaction_documentDownload the document attached to a seller wallet movement and return the file; use the movement ID from growwer_list_seller_transactions.
Use this when the user needs the document Growwer attached to a movement of their seller wallet: returns the file. Find the movement with growwer_list_seller_transactions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds that the tool 'returns the file', clarifying it produces document content rather than metadata, but says nothing about file format, encoding, size limits, or failure behavior.
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 sentences, zero waste, and the triggering condition is front-loaded before the prerequisite tool. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 should explain how the file is delivered (binary content, base64 payload, or URL) since that determines how an agent handles the result. 'Returns the file' gestures at this but does not resolve it, leaving a real gap for a download tool.
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?
The single parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema alone leaves it ambiguous. The description partially compensates by pointing to growwer_list_seller_transactions as the source of the movement, implying the id is a movement identifier, but it never states this outright.
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: returns the document attached to a movement in the user's seller wallet. The phrase 'seller wallet' distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling growwer_download_buyer_transaction_document without needing to open either schema.
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?
'Use this when the user needs the document Growwer attached to a movement of their seller wallet' gives a clear triggering condition, and it explicitly routes the agent to growwer_list_seller_transactions to obtain the movement first. It does not contrast against other document-download siblings (withdrawal invoice, invoice PDF), so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.