HelloBooks AI Agents

analyze_balance_sheet

Take a Balance Sheet CSV export from QuickBooks Online, Xero, Zoho Books, or Wave (source auto-detected) and run three checks: (1) bs.equation_broken — the fundamental accounting equation Assets = Liabilities + Equity does not hold (every downstream ratio analysis is invalid until fixed); (2) bs.negative_asset — Cash / AR / Inventory line items with negative balances (reconciliation error signal); (3) bs.negative_equity — Total Equity < 0 (insolvency signal). Input is raw CSV text of a Balance Sheet (Reports → Balance Sheet in QBO / Xero / Zoho / Wave). Max 5,000 rows; max 5 MB. Returns flags with severity, totals (totalAssets, totalLiabilities, totalEquity, equationBalances boolean), and a shareable URL. Use this when a user pastes a Balance Sheet and asks "does my balance sheet balance?", "is the accounting equation satisfied?", or "is my company solvent on paper?". A Balance Sheet that fails Assets = Liabilities + Equity invalidates every downstream financial-ratio analysis — this is the single most important check for any BS.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`csvText`	Yes	Raw CSV text of a Balance Sheet report. Works with QuickBooks Online (Reports → Balance Sheet), Xero (Reports → Balance Sheet), Zoho Books (Reports → Balance Sheet), and Wave (Reports → Balance Sheet). Statement should include Total Assets, Total Liabilities, and Total Equity rows. Source is auto-detected from section name signatures.
`fileName`	No	Optional filename for the share-page label.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: input format (CSV), sources, row/size limits, three check definitions, output fields (flags, totals, URL), and the critical implication that a failed equation invalidates downstream ratios.

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 description is well-structured with a clear list of checks, input specs, output description, and use cases. It is slightly long but each sentence adds value; minor redundancy in the importance statement.

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 tool's complexity (3 checks, multiple sources), the description covers inputs, constraints, outputs, and use cases adequately. Without an output schema, it still explains return values (flags, totals, URL). It could detail flag severity, but is sufficient.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context beyond schema: for csvText it specifies required rows (Total Assets, etc.) and source auto-detection; for fileName it notes optional label for share page.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool takes a Balance Sheet CSV and runs three specific checks (equation, negative asset, negative equity), with source auto-detection. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on balance sheet-specific checks and notes it's the most important check for any BS.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use this when a user pastes a Balance Sheet and asks...' and gives three example questions. It could mention alternatives like analyze_profit_loss for income statements, but the use cases are clear.

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

All HelloBooks AI Agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that specify the exact input and use case. Even similar tools like QBO vs Xero journal analyzers are differentiated by source system and specific checks, leaving no ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., analyze_balance_sheet, list_features). A few exceptions like how_munimji_helps and feature_search deviate slightly, but overall the convention is consistent and readable.

Tool Count4/5

With 26 tools covering financial analysis, compliance, migration, and product info, the count is on the higher side but justified by the breadth of the accounting domain. Each tool serves a specific need without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers all major financial statement checks (balance sheet, P&L, trial balance, journal entries), compliance, migration, and product details. A notable gap is the lack of cash flow analysis, but the set is otherwise comprehensive for its scope.

Resources

Need Help?