Sync every linked connection in one pass: push the latest balance into each linked holding, and stage new transactions into the review queue. Reports what was written, what was staged and any per-provider errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key side effects: writing latest balances into linked holdings and staging new transactions into a review queue. It also states that it reports written/staged items and per-provider errors. Minor gaps remain around idempotency, reversibility, and auth requirements, but the main behavior is clearly exposed.
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 sentences with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and primary effects, and the second compactly summarizes the output behavior. Every clause contributes useful 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 an empty-schema, no-output-schema tool, this description is largely complete: it covers the action, scope, side effects, and error reporting. A caveat about prerequisites such as requiring existing linked connections or whether the operation is repeatable would round it out, but it is not a major gap.
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 has 100% coverage, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline score for a no-parameter tool is 4.
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 and resource: 'Sync every linked connection in one pass' and clearly enumerates the operations (pushing balances and staging transactions). It distinguishes itself from siblings like refresh_prices by describing a broader sync of holdings and transactions rather than just price data.
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 phrase 'every linked connection in one pass' gives clear context for when to use this tool as a bulk sync across all connections. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined enough to infer the intended use case.
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 distinct domain operation: dashboard views, history, pricing, projections, reference data, tax reports, connections, transactions, trade logging, balance adjustments, and syncing. There is no overlap between read-only queries and mutation commands, so an agent should be able to select the right tool for a specific task without confusion.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_dashboard, get_net_worth_history, get_prices, get_projection_config, get_reference_data, get_tax_report, list_connections, list_transactions, log_trade, record_balance_adjustment, refresh_prices, sync_connections. The verbs (get, list, log, record, refresh, sync) are clear and align with the noun they operate on.
Twelve tools is well-scoped for a personal finance/ledger server. Each tool covers a necessary aspect of the domain (viewing, reporting, data entry, sync), and none feel redundant or excessive. This fits the typical range for a coherent service.
The surface covers core read operations (dashboard, history, prices, reference data, tax, transactions), mutation operations (log_trade, record_balance_adjustment), and maintenance operations (refresh_prices, sync_connections). Missing could be an update/delete for transactions or connections, but the provided tools cover the primary lifecycle of a financial ledger without dead ends.
