Create a sale conversion payload for testing and simulation without triggering network requests. Validate attribution data and generate compliant conversion records.
Build a sale conversion payload without network side effects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | No | ||
| eventId | Yes | ||
| clickIds | No | ||
| currency | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (no network side effects), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention validation, return value, or error behavior. For a builder tool, that's a significant gap.
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?
The description is one sentence, extremely concise, and front-loads the purpose. There is no fluff. However, it may be too sparse for the complexity, but that's a completeness issue, not conciseness.
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?
Given 4 parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotation, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain the parameters, the return value, or any edge cases. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based solely on this description.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the four parameters (value, eventId, clickIds, currency) at all. The agent has no guidance on what these mean or how they relate to building the payload.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('build') and resource ('sale conversion payload'), and the phrase 'without network side effects' differentiates it from sibling tools like send_conversion that likely perform network sends. This is a clear, non-tautological statement.
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 description implies usage: build a payload without sending. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this vs. send_conversion or send_qualified_lead. The 'without network side effects' hints at the use case but leaves the decision to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.