HelloBooks AI Agents

analyze_xero_journal_anomalies

Scan a Xero "Manual Journals" CSV export for anomalies — currently round-number lines (debit or credit amounts that are exact multiples of $1,000, above a $1,000 materiality threshold). Input is raw CSV text from Xero Accounting → Advanced → Manual Journals → Export. Max 5,000 rows; max 5 MB. Returns flagged lines with severity ($100K+ high, $10K+ medium, else low) and a shareable URL. Use this when a user pastes Xero data and asks "any anomalies?", "look for round numbers", or "anything suspicious". Same Tier-0 / paid-product split as the QBO variant — history-aware anomaly checks (GL outliers, vendor history, archived-vendor activity, LLM-narrated suspicious) live in the authenticated MCP / paid product.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`csvText`	Yes	Raw CSV text of a Xero "Manual Journals" report. Export from Xero: Accounting → Advanced → Manual Journals → Export. Paste the file contents directly.
`fileName`	No	Optional original filename, used only as a label on the share page.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: input is raw CSV, max 5,000 rows/5 MB, returns severity-labeled flagged lines and a shareable URL. It also clarifies the scope (only round-number anomalies) and product tier.

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 thorough and front-loaded with the main purpose, but it includes some longer sentences that could be slightly more concise. Overall, it is well-structured.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers input format, size limits, output structure, and product context, making it complete for an anomaly-detection tool without an output schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it restates the CSV source but does not elaborate on the fileName parameter's use.

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 scans Xero Manual Journals CSV for round-number anomalies, specifying the threshold and output format. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the QBO variant and the split between unauthenticated and authenticated checks.

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 provides explicit context for when to use the tool (e.g., user asks 'any anomalies?') and notes that advanced history-aware checks are in the paid product, but it does not explicitly list when not to use it.

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?