Skip to main content
Glama

Dayze — Life Context

Money Between People

get_money_between_people
Read-only

Same as get_person_transactions: authenticated user ↔ one contact via individual expense rows. Requires context.read and financial_details:read. Prefer get_person_transactions; this alias exists for agent discoverability. ($0.10; API key required)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoInclusive YYYY-MM-DD filter
fromNoInclusive YYYY-MM-DD filter
nameNoSurface name if person_id unknown
limitNoMax rows 1–200, default 50
person_idNoCRM people.id

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
modelNo
totalsNo
accountNoThe Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.
entriesNo
person_idNo
inspect_noteNoHow to cite: link each record with its inspect_url, never a link built from an id; which record types here have no Dayze page.
person_inspect_urlNoThe contact's Dayze page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / account
      Added value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": false,
      +  "description": "The Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.",
      +  "properties": {
      +    "display_name": {
      +      "description": "Account display name.",
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "handle": {
      +      "description": "Account handle, e.g. @goh.",
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "note": {
      +      "description": "How to disclose the account to the user.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "qa_fixture": {
      +      "description": "True for a known QA test account: its records are fixture data, not a real life.",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "handle",
      +    "display_name",
      +    "qa_fixture",
      +    "note"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / inspect_note
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "How to cite: link each record with its inspect_url, never a link built from an id; which record types here have no Dayze page.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / person_inspect_url
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The contact's Dayze page.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / from
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Inclusive YYYY-MM-DD filter",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / to
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Inclusive YYYY-MM-DD filter",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: required scopes (context.read, financial_details:read) and a cost/auth note ($0.10; API key required). It does not explain pagination or result shape, but the output schema exists.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: equivalence, scope, scopes/cost, and the preference note all appear in a single tight block. The parenthetical cost/API-key note is slightly compressed but not wasteful.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With annotations covering the read-only safety profile and an output schema handling return values, the description supplies the remaining essentials: auth scopes, cost, and the alias relationship to the canonical tool. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (to, from, name, limit, person_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior or formats, which matches the baseline for full-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and scope (authenticated user ↔ one contact via individual expense rows) and names the equivalent sibling get_person_transactions, so an agent can place it without opening the schema. Slight deduction because the tool's own identity is framed entirely by reference to another tool rather than standing alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: "Prefer get_person_transactions; this alias exists for agent discoverability." It names the alternative and the condition that selects it, so there is no ambiguity about which tool to call.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.