accounting_get_journal_entry_by_transactionGetJournalEntryByTransaction returns the journal entry derived for one transaction (empty when none exists yet). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. | |
| transactionId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the result is empty when no journal entry exists yet, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent interpret the response.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and behavior, and the second reinforces read-only nature. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the key information.
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?
The tool is simple, has an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and strong annotations. The description covers the key edge case (empty result) and does not need to explain return format due to output schema. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters having descriptions ('UUID value wrapper'). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states it returns the journal entry derived for one transaction, using the specific verb 'returns' and resource 'journal entry'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'by transaction' and 'for one transaction', which differentiates it from list-oriented journal entry 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 clear context that this tool is scoped to a single transaction, implying it is for fetching a single derived journal entry rather than listing multiple. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'for one transaction' phrasing gives sufficient guidance for when to use it.
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.
Multiple tool pairs are nearly identical (formation_extract_cap_table / formation_extract_cap_table_ocr; formation_start_formation / formation_create_formation), and several tools lack descriptions, making selection ambiguous. The scale of 202 tools with overlapping summaries (e.g., multiple cap-table summary tools) compounds the confusion.
Dominant snake_case `module_verb_noun` pattern, but with notable deviations: `captable_send_safe_for_signature` uses an inconsistent abbreviation, `check_company_name_availability` lacks a module prefix, and `get_list_` vs `list_` prefixes are mixed. Readable but not fully consistent.
202 tools is far beyond any reasonable surface for a single server, even a broad platform. The sheer number overwhelms and makes tool discovery impractical; many tools are peripheral (ads metrics) to the core formation purpose.
The domain appears well covered: formation flows, cap-table lifecycle (import, close, simulate), accounting (journal entries, periods, schedules), cards, documents, and transactions all have CRUD or lifecycle operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no card deletion, no counterparty creation), but they are unlikely to cause dead ends.