list_uncategorized_transactionsList bank transactions still waiting to be categorized/reviewed, with a count and total. Answers "what bank transactions still need categorizing?"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many to return (default 10, max 50). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| transactions | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, conveying a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns a count and total, which provides some behavioral context. However, no additional disclosures about side effects, auth requirements, or response behavior are made. The description does not contradict 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?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or filler. Ideal structure for quick parsing by an AI agent.
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 the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers the key aspect: it lists uncategorized transactions with count and total. It does not mention sorting or filtering beyond limit, but for a straightforward list tool, this is sufficient. The output schema likely documents return values, so the description need not elaborate further.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'limit' fully described in the schema (default 10, max 50). The description adds no further parameter details. According to guidelines, with high coverage (>=80%), baseline is 3, and no extra information is provided to elevate the score.
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 verb 'list', the resource 'bank transactions still waiting to be categorized/reviewed', and specifies output includes a count and total. It directly answers a natural language question, distinguishing it from sibling list tools that target different entities (e.g., list_bills_owed, list_clients).
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 implies usage by answering a specific question ('what bank transactions still need categorizing?'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_recent_expenses or list_outstanding_invoices. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.
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.