save_share_capitalSave the share-capital reconciliation for the period: the opening share count, the shares issued and bought back during the year, and the amount issued and the amount bought back.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | Yes | The entity (client) id — from list_clients. | |
| period_id | Yes | ||
| template_id | Yes | ||
| amount_issued | Yes | ||
| shares_issued | Yes | ||
| opening_shares | Yes | ||
| amount_bought_back | Yes | ||
| shares_bought_back | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as overwriting existing data, permission requirements, or side effects. It merely lists the data fields, which is not behavioral disclosure.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the key fields. Every word earns its place, and there is no wasteful repetition.
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 its complexity (8 required parameters), lack of output schema, and very low schema description coverage, the description does not provide enough context. It does not explain prerequisites, return values, or side effects. The listing of fields is helpful but insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional schema information.
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?
With schema coverage at only 13%, the description compensates partially by explaining the meaning of several fields (opening share count, shares issued/bought back, amounts). However, it does not cover client_id, template_id, or period_id explicitly, and it does not explain formats or nullability. This is an improvement over the bare schema but incomplete.
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's purpose: 'Save the share-capital reconciliation for the period' with a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('share-capital reconciliation'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_partner_capital and save_reserves_movements by explicitly naming the share-capital domain.
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 for saving share-capital reconciliation data for a period, implying when to use it. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough to guide selection among similar save tools.
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 or action — get_* reads, save_* writes, confirm_* approves, preview_* shows consequences before approval. Even the management-data trio (budgets, allocations, variance) is cleanly separated by surface. Two-step flows like preview_chart_rebaseline → confirm_complete_chart are clearly sequenced, so an agent won't confuse the stages.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern: get_* for reads, list_* for discovery, save_* for section writes, confirm_* for approvals, create_* for new entities/centres, preview_* for pre-approval checks. The few one-offs (ingest_upload, upload_trial_balance, set_header_row) still fit the verb-first convention. No camelCase or style mixing.
At 67 tools this is well past the 'too many' threshold. While the Schedule III domain genuinely is broad — statutorily mandated sections, two-phase approval flows, readiness checks, and a separate management-data area — the surface is heavy; an agent will spend real effort just surveying the tool list. Some consolidation of the save_reserves/provisions/assets movements or merging preview+confirm pairs is possible.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: upload → mapping/costing → grouping → capture (all statutory sections) → declarations → readiness → generate → finalise → download, plus entity setup and consolidated statements. Minor gaps: no tool directly exposes historical version diffing beyond list_snapshots, and the management-data section (budgets, allocations, variance) feels bolted on rather than integral to the core flow.