steward_cost_destroyed
Steward — cost destroyed: money you did NOT spend (was -> now), kept in your currency.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
concordance
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed3 schema fields changed
- added
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +false - added
Input schema / properties / items / itemsAdded value: +{ + "maxLength": 4000, + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / items / maxItemsAdded value: +200
- First observed
TDQS
D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only provides a conceptual phrase. It does not indicate side effects, return type, required permissions, or what happens with the items input. For a tool with 'destroyed' in the name, the description ought to clarify if it mutates data or merely reports.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (one sentence), but it is under-specification rather than concise. It wastes the opportunity to communicate function. The phrase may be grammatically concise, but it does not earn its place because it is not actionable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a minimal schema and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to provide enough context for correct invocation: the agent will not know what to put in 'items' or what the response contains. This is far below minimum viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single 'items' parameter with zero description coverage. The tool description does not connect 'items' to the 'cost destroyed' concept, leaving the agent to guess what strings to provide, their format, or their meaning. There is no compensation for the missing schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description defines 'cost destroyed' as 'money you did NOT spend (was -> now)' but does not state what action the tool performs with the input items. It lacks a clear verb and resource, and does not distinguish from sibling tools like steward_budget. This is essentially a definition/tautology, not a functional description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The phrase is purely informational and gives no directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.