export_portfolio_csv
Export portfolio records to CSV format for external analysis.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No |
popadex-personal-finance
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
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 states the export action. Missing details like read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or output handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise but under-specified. It could retain conciseness while adding critical info like parameter roles.
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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is highly incomplete. Lacks details on return format, mechanism (download vs inline), and authentication needs.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention parameters at all. Does not explain how 'to' and 'from' dates affect the export.
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 clearly states the action (export), resource (portfolio records), and format (CSV). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on different operations like budget building, comparisons, or projections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
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.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of personal finance (budget, country comparisons, portfolio, net worth, retirement, salary, tax) with no apparent overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using verbs like 'build', 'compare', 'export', 'get', 'run' followed by a descriptive noun phrase.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools covering various personal finance analysis tasks, the count is well-scoped—neither too few to be useful nor too many to cause confusion.
Completeness4/5
The set covers key areas like budget, portfolio, net worth, retirement, salary, and tax, but may lack more granular operations like transaction management, which could be intentional for an analysis-focused server.