get_business_snapshotOne-look snapshot of the business right now: money in, money out, net, outstanding invoices, bills owed, and how much tax to set aside. Answers "how is my business doing this year?"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| net | Yes | ||
| basis | No | ||
| period | Yes | ||
| moneyIn | Yes | ||
| moneyOut | Yes | ||
| billsOwed | Yes | ||
| outstanding | Yes | ||
| taxSetAside | Yes | ||
| accountingMethod | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds context that it aggregates multiple financial elements into a single snapshot (money in/out, net, invoices, bills, tax). It does not disclose potential performance implications or exact aggregation behavior, but for a simple read-only summary this is sufficient.
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 sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose ('One-look snapshot of the business right now') and lists contents; the second gives the exact question it answers. No fluff or repetition, every word earns its place.
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?
Despite having no output schema details provided, the description clearly enumerates what the tool returns (money in/out, net, outstanding invoices, bills, tax set-aside). With zero params and read-only annotations, this fully explains the tool's behavior for selection and invocation. It is complete for its 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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty properties). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to document parameters and instead focuses on what the snapshot includes, which is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('snapshot') and clearly enumerates the resource: money in, money out, net, outstanding invoices, bills owed, and tax set aside. It also explicitly answers a business question ('how is my business doing this year?'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cash_summary or list_outstanding_invoices that focus on individual components.
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 strongly implies when to use it: for a one-look, high-level overview of business health. It frames the use case with the question the tool answers. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of' individual sibling summaries, so it misses explicit exclusion guidance.
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 specific financial, client, project, or tax aspect with clear, distinct descriptions. Overlaps like get_cost_summary vs get_expense_summary are resolved by explicit scope differences (costs include mileage and bills; expenses are line-item). No two tools serve the same purpose.
All 25 tools follow a strict `verb_noun` pattern: `get_` for detailed summaries and `list_` for enumerations. No mixed conventions (camelCase, abbreviations) are present, making the pattern predictable for an agent.
At 25 tools, the set is on the larger side but fully justified by the breadth of the domain (financial summaries, clients, projects, taxes, contacts, time, mileage). Each tool covers a distinct slice; minor redundancies (e.g., cost vs expense summary) are acceptable due to nuanced differences.
The surface covers essential business operations: revenue, costs, expenses, cash, invoices, bills, projects, clients, contacts, taxes, time, mileage, and goals. Notably missing are any mutation tools (create/update), but the server appears intentionally read-only (analytics/reporting). For that purpose, the coverage is strong.