Recorded spending on a trip — the money entered by hand or imported, NOT the booked prices on flights and hotels (those come back from get_journey). Includes each row's source_ref, so an importer can see what it already brought in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_date | No | ISO date, e.g. 2026-08-01 | |
| from_date | No | ISO date, e.g. 2026-08-01 | |
| journey_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds valuable context beyond the annotations by clarifying the scope (recorded spending vs. booked prices) and the presence of source_ref, which helps set expectations about the data returned. No contradiction with annotations.
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 two sentences with no filler. It promptly states the core distinction (recorded spending vs. booked prices) and then adds the source_ref detail. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and efficient.
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 it's a simple list tool with read-only annotations and no output schema requirement, the description covers the essential semantics: what data is returned and how it differs from related tools. It doesn't mention pagination or sorting, but those are minor for this context and not expected from the annotations or schema. Overall, the description is adequate for correct usage.
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?
The schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (to_date and from_date), and journey_id lacks a description but is self-explanatory from the tool name. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it doesn't supplement what the schema already provides. Since coverage is moderate and the remaining parameter is obvious, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states precisely what the tool returns: recorded spending (hand-entered or imported), explicitly distinguishing it from booked prices on flights and hotels. It mentions the source_ref field, giving a clear and distinct purpose that differentiates it from get_journey and other tools.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it clarifies that booked prices come from get_journey, and mentions source_ref for importers to avoid re-importing. This effectively tells the agent when to choose this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., create_flight vs create_activity vs create_stay), and descriptions clarify overlaps like stay vs accommodation. The only potential confusion (create_activity covers travel legs) is explicitly explained, so misselection is unlikely.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using standard verbs: create, delete, get, list, search, set, update, add, remove, leave. Nouns are consistently singular and descriptive (passport, journey, stay, flight, accommodation). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
With 36 tools, the count is higher than typical, but the server covers a wide domain: journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas, documents, preferences, and sharing. Each entity has CRUD operations plus search and status, so the count is justified, though bordering on heavy.
The tool surface is remarkably complete: full CRUD for every entity (journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas), user profile access (get_me), search utilities, sharing controls (join links, member management), and preferences. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps; even edge cases like deleting bookings before stays are handled.