Skip to main content
Glama

AFOS — Agentic Financial OS

by com.focxle

budget_history

Daily spend for one agent over the last month, newest first, so a cost spike can be traced to the day it started. Free. Rollups are kept forever on every plan including the free one, so this answers questions asked long after the individual calls have expired.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoHow many days back to return. Default 30, maximum 90.
deploymentNoThe deployment id to report on. Defaults to you, if you are a registered deployment.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: it is free, rollups are kept forever across plans, and results are newest-first. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or auth requirements, but the read nature is evident from the content.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. Each sentence contributes distinct value: what it returns, cost, and retention behavior.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, cost, and data retention. It doesn't detail the exact fields returned, but this is not critical for basic use.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully described. The description adds only a loose allusion to the monthly window and 'one agent,' providing no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly states it returns daily spend for one agent over the last month with newest-first ordering. Distinguishes itself from sibling budget tools like budget_status and budget_delegate by focusing on historical spend rather than status or actions.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear use contexts: tracing cost spikes to their start day and answering historical questions after individual calls expire. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies when this tool is appropriate.

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

All AFOS — Agentic Financial OS toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool is scoped to a distinct resource and action within its domain (budget, contract, deal, escrow, hiring, wallet, workroom, trust). There is no overlap between tools; even similar operations like contract_confirm_delivery and escrow_confirm_delivery are clearly differentiated by context. A model can reliably select the correct tool for a given task.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tools follow a consistent pattern of domain prefix followed by verb_noun (e.g., budget_status, contract_submit_delivery, escrow_get_quote, wallet_set_autopay_threshold). The naming is uniform across all 42 tools, with no mixing of conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb placement.

Tool Count2/5

With 42 tools, the server is heavily overloaded. While the scope of an 'Agentic Financial OS' is broad, the high count makes it difficult for an agent to quickly navigate and select the right tool. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple get/list tools per domain, documentation tools like *how_it_works that could be merged). The count exceeds the recommended range and feels excessive.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of financial operations: budget management, negotiation (deal_open/propose/accept/cancel), contract creation and delivery with verification, escrow with payment protection, hiring workflows, wallet operations, trust checks, and a marketplace for data/services. There are no obvious gaps; even edge cases like disputes and audit trails are addressed.

Resources