accounting_get_trial_balanceGetTrialBalance returns every account's debit and credit totals for a period; total debits equal total credits when the books balance. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| basis | No | ||
| endDate | No | ||
| companyId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. | |
| startDate | No | ||
| currencyCode | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | No | ||
| totalDebits | No | ||
| currencyCode | No | ||
| totalCredits | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the output semantics: per-account debit/credit totals and the balancing property. This is useful behavioral context about the report's nature.
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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences covering the core function and a read-only note. However, the 'Read-only.' statement is redundant with the annotation, slightly reducing efficiency, but it doesn't detract significantly.
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?
With an output schema present, return values are likely covered. The description adequately covers the main purpose but omits parameter semantics and edge cases (e.g., what happens if dates are omitted, default basis). It's adequate for a report tool but has clear gaps.
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 only 20%, with only companyId having a minimal description. The description text does not explain parameters like basis, startDate, endDate, or currencyCode, nor does it clarify that 'period' relates to the date parameters. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 the tool returns every account's debit and credit totals for a period, which is a specific verb+resource. The balancing condition ('total debits equal total credits') adds distinctive semantic detail that differentiates it from sibling reports like general ledger or balance sheet.
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 implies usage by describing the trial balance report, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as accounting_get_general_ledger or accounting_get_balance_sheet. There are no exclusions or alternative scenarios mentioned.
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.