get_cash_summaryCash position from bank activity: money in, money out, net, and how many transactions still need review. Answers "how much cash has moved through my accounts?"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| net | Yes | ||
| moneyIn | Yes | ||
| moneyOut | Yes | ||
| committedCount | Yes | ||
| pendingReviewCount | Yes | ||
| uncategorizedCount | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "committedCount": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "moneyIn": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "moneyOut": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "net": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "pendingReviewCount": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "uncategorizedCount": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "moneyIn",
+ "moneyOut",
+ "net",
+ "committedCount",
+ "pendingReviewCount",
+ "uncategorizedCount"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about using bank activity and including review counts, but does not address auth needs, rate limits, or behavior with no data. It is adequate but not rich beyond annotations.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose ('Cash position from bank activity'). Every sentence contributes meaningful information.
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?
For a tool with no input parameters and an output schema (presumably documented separately), the description covers the key outputs and purpose. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by clarifying what the returned summary includes (money in/out, net, review count), which is useful context even though no parameter details are needed.
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 provides cash position from bank activity, listing specific outputs (money in, out, net, review count). It answers a clear question. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling summary tools like get_expense_summary or get_revenue_summary, so it loses a point for lack of differentiation.
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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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.