A water-billing MCP exposes account_lookup and meter_read_history. What should each description clarify?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Account lookup and meter history are neighbors, not twins. Say when to use each versus the other so the water-billing agent stops mixing them up.
Full Explanation
When a water-billing MCP exposes account_lookup and meter_read_history, each description should clarify when to use each tool versus the alternative, including typical inputs and outcomes. Account lookup resolves billing identity and account attributes; meter history returns time-series reads—adjacent but not interchangeable for utility agents.
When-to-use-versus-alternative guidance works because utility intents often mention “water” ambiguously. Explicit contrast (account master data vs historical consumption) plus example inputs (account ID vs meter ID and date range) steers correct selection for billing disputes and usage questions.
Saying only that both tools “get water data” with no further distinction recreates the twin-tool failure mode. Claiming either tool may be called for any request interchangeably teaches the model that wrong calls are acceptable. Asserting that names alone are always sufficient ignores cases where names are similar and civic boundaries differ.
Exam caveat: include negative guidance—what each tool does not return—to prevent hopeful misuse. Operational check: ask for account status versus monthly reads and confirm account_lookup vs meter_read_history selection after contrasting descriptions are added.