Skip to main content
Glama

MCPFax Agent Continuity

Record a spend against a unit of work

budget_record

An agent cannot see its own spend across sessions, so runaway cost is invisible until the bill arrives. Append one amount to this scope's ledger. FREE and APPEND-ONLY — nothing is overwritten and nothing is silently dropped; when the ledger is full, adds are REFUSED. The amount is an OPAQUE DECIMAL STRING stored byte-exact as you send it: we never convert a currency, never assume six decimals and never touch a float. Totals are summed as exact integers at the widest scale you actually used. FREE — this tool never charges. Authenticate with Authorization: Bearer , or pass agent_key as an argument if your host cannot set headers. Equivalent HTTP route: POST /v1/budget/record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNoWhat the money went on, so budget_check can break the total down. <=64 chars, stored in plain text. Example: 'resume_packet'.
limitNoOptional. Set or update this scope's limit, as a decimal string. We only ever REPORT against it — we never block a call, because enforcement is your decision and not our authority. Example: '1.00'.
scopeYesThe unit of work this spend belongs to. Namespace-scoped, and the same scope resume_packet reports against. Example: 'permit-review-2026-08'.
agent_keyNoYour agent_secret, if your MCP host cannot set the Authorization header. Prefer the header.
amount_usdcYesA decimal string, e.g. '0.002' or '1.25'. Stored EXACTLY as given and returned byte-identical. Optionally negative for a refund. Never converted or rescaled. Example: '0.002'.
ttl_secondsNoLedger retention. Default 2592000 (30d), max 7776000 (90d). Example: '2592000'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / agent_key / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  "the agent_secret that register returned"
      +]
  2. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / amount_usdc / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  "0.002"
      +]
    • addedInput schema / properties / label / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  "resume_packet"
      +]
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  "1.00"
      +]
    • addedInput schema / properties / scope / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  "permit-review-2026-08"
      +]
    • addedInput schema / properties / ttl_seconds / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  2592000
      +]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses append-only behavior, refusal when full, byte-exact decimal handling, no currency conversion, no float usage, exact integer summation, authentication requirements, and that the tool is free. It explains the operation's side effects without needing the schema or hints to carry the burden.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but each clause carries operational context: append-only, free, exactness, refusal behavior, and auth. It is front-loaded with the core action and scoping. Minor redundancy exists, such as saying FREE twice and restating append-only, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 6-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, free-ness, exactness, failure behavior, and append semantics. The main gap is that it never describes the success response shape or confirm details, which would be useful given there is no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful precision semantics: amounts are opaque decimal strings stored byte-exact, never converted or rescaled, and totals use exact integer arithmetic. It also explains the purpose of the label relative to budget_check, enriching the structured parameter documentation.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Append one amount to this scope's ledger', and the title 'Record a spend against a unit of work' reinforces exactly what the tool does. It is clearly distinguished from budget_check, the sibling that later 'break[s] the total down', so an agent can tell record from read.

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?

The description makes it clear this tool is for recording a spend by appending to a ledger, and it references budget_check as the consumer of the label. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or route the agent to budget_check for reading, but the context is strong enough to infer the intended use.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources