Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Authoryze

by ai.authoryze
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get spending summary

get_spending_summary
Read-only

Get current spending vs. configured limits. Per-agent fields (daily_spent, weekly_spent, monthly_spent, total_budget_spent) reflect rules set on this agent. The optional user_aggregate object reports the owner's cross-agent caps — these apply across every agent on the account and will deny a purchase even if this agent's per-agent rules are not exceeded. The optional team object appears only when this agent belongs to a team. team.daily, team.weekly and team.monthly are ceilings across every agent in that team (so they can already be near their limit even if this agent has spent nothing). team.per_agent holds the team's limits for each agent (daily, weekly, monthly, total_budget): they apply to this agent alone, alongside its own rules, and count only its purchases on the team; each has a binding field, team or agent, naming whichever of the team's limit and this agent's own leaves less room. team.auto_approve_threshold, when present, is the threshold that decides what needs human approval, and team.threshold_source says whether it is the team's or this agent's own lower one. Team periods follow the team's timezone. Only configured limits appear in the response.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_spending_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it explains that user_aggregate and team limits can deny a purchase even when per-agent limits are not exceeded, that team objects appear conditionally, and how binding/threshold_source resolve competing limits. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a read-only summary the added context is strong.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence explains a nested response field that is not documented by an output schema. The paragraph is dense and could be easier to scan, but it does not contain obvious filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of cross-agent/team limits, the description does a good job explaining optional objects, scope interactions, and conditional presence. Minor gaps remain around units/currency and exact current-period semantics, so it is not fully exhaustive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on response semantics instead of inventing parameter guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get current spending vs. configured limits.' It clearly defines the domain and explains the per-agent, user_aggregate, and team scopes, so an agent can tell this is a read-only summary rather than a purchase action. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no precondition, and no mention of alternatives such as check_status or request_purchase. The description explains response semantics but leaves the agent to infer that it should be called before attempting a purchase.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Authoryze toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources